DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. GV SUDHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises a question whether the High Court could have stayed under S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 the proceedings for confiscation of illicitly felled teak timber trees by the respondents from the reserved forests in Adilabad district, which were seized under sub-s. (1) thereof, pending before the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad who is the Authorized Officer under S. 44(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 till the disposal of the criminal case pending against him before the Court of XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for commission of alleged offences punishable under S. 20(1)(c)(iv) and (x) and S. 20(1)(d) read with S. 29(4)(a)(ii) of the Act.

(2.) First as to the facts. On an information being laid that the respondent G. V. Sudhakar Rao was indulging in widespread illicit felling and removal of teak trees from the reserved forest in Adilabad district, the Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Nirmal on July 18, 1982 seized teak timber measuring 42.7 cubic metres valued at Rs. 1,71,000 from the residential house of the respondent under sub-s. (1) of S. 44 of the Act. On July 19, 1982, the Range Officer forthwith produced the seized timber before the Divisional Forest Officer who is the Authorized Officer under S. 44(2A) of the Act, along with a report that he had reason to believe that a forest offence had been committed by the respondent in respect of the seized timber. While the confiscation proceedings were pending before the Authorized Officer under sub-s. (2A) of S. 44 of the Act, on Oct. 9, 1982 the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for release of the seized timber but the Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge. In appeal preferred by the respondent, a Division Bench declined to grant any interim relief but directed the Forest Department to decide either to proceed with confiscation of the seized timber under S. 44(2A) of the Act or file a complaint regarding the commission of a forest offence before a Magistrate. Accordingly, the Forest Range Officer lodged a complaint before the XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for trial of the respondents for commission of alleged offences under S. 20(1)(c)(iv) and (x) and S. 20(1)(d) read with S. 29(4)(a)(ii) of the Act. On Aug. 1, 1983, the respondents moved an application before the High Court under S. 482 of the Code for staying the proceedings before the Authorized Officer under S. 44(2A) of the Act in view of the pending criminal prosecution. A learned single Judge (Ramachandra Raju, J.) by the impugned order directed stay of the proceedings before the Authorized Officer under S. 44(2 A) of the Act till the disposal of the criminal case by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal by way of special leave as the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, is of far-reaching consequences.

(3.) The precise question that falls for determination is whether where a Forest Officer. makes a report of seizure of any timber of forest produce and produces the seized property along with a report under S. 44(2) that he has reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such timber or forest produce seized, can there simultaneously be proceedings for confiscation to Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements, etc., by the Authorized Officer under S. 44(2A) of the Act if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, along with a criminal case instituted on a complaint by the Forest Officer before a Magistrate of the commission of a forest offence under S. 20 of the Act. The appeal turns upon a Proper construction of Ss. 44(2), 44 (2A) and 45 of the Act, as amended by Act 17 of 1976.