JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - Since the revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (IA No.2/2021) has been moved. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Admit.

4. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar (Nainital) in Criminal Case No.508 of 2012, "Forest Range Officer Vs. Binttu" whereby the revisionist was convicted u/s 26(1) (e) of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and U/s 51 read with Section 2(16) (Ga), 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to undergo one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The revisionist was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the Forest Department as well as judgment and order dated 15.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar (Nainital) in criminal appeal no.25 of 2014, "Binttu Vs. State", whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed judgment and order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the trial Court.

5. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that on 07.11.2009 at about 4 a.m. the accused was arrested by the Forest Officers with two horns of cheetal and forest produce, accordingly, charges were framed.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution produced PW1 Haridutt Devrani, PW2 Hariprasad Raturi and PW3 Shailendra Kumar.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidence and stated that the prosecution produced false evidence against him. In defence, no evidence was produced.

8. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no.25 of 2014, "Binttu Vs. State".

9. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court came to this conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court's order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire evidence available on the record.

11. Learned Counsel for the revisionist fairly submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merit because the trial Court rightly convicted the revisionist based on evidence. He fairly submitted that the matter relates to the year 2009 and forest produce was recovered from his possession besides two horns of cheetal; the revisionist has already served more than five months in jail and having regard to the nature of the offence committed by revisionist and his spotless carrier without any criminal antecedents, this Court, while upholding revisionist's conviction, may consider to alter the sentence awarded to the revisionist and reduce it to the extent of period already undergone.

12. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed regarding the present offence committed by the revisionist.

13. I have also gone through the evidence on record and came to this conclusion that the trial Court has convicted the revisionist based on sufficient evidence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings. The appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal legally.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and considering the fact that the incident is quite old and seems to have occurred in the year 2009; the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedents in his pas