STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KORRAPATI SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. V.G. Pragasam, learned counsel for the respondents, states that though on the last occasion he had undertaken to file Vakalatnama for respondents Nos.1 and 6, despite his best efforts, he could not contact them and obtain instructions for filing vakalat. Therefore, we deem that respondents Nos. 1 and 6 are not interested in contesting the matter. They are set ex-parte.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) On the intervening night of February 14 and 15, 1978, the lorry - APD 3156, was being loaded with 28 logs of red-sander wood at tri-junction road, one mile away from Sanipaya near Marrimanu in Cuddapah District of Andhra Pradesh State. The officers of the forest department, who were in watch, proceeded to the place and seized the 28 sander-wood logs loaded in the lorry under a Panchnama-Ex.P8. They also seized 118 logs which were kept on the road side for being loaded into the lorry. The statement of the accused 2 to 7 who were apprehended on the spot, were recorded under Exs. P1 to P7. The lorry trip sheet Ex.P-19 was also seized. Thereafter, they were charged for the offence under S.20 read with S.29 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandal-wood and Red-sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, (for short 'the Rules.'). The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence found the respondents guilty and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for three months and imposed fine of Rs.100/- on each of them, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one week. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The lorry MO-1 was also ordered to be confiscated, if not it was done by the competent authority under S.44 of the Act. On appeal, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated October 1, 1985, confirmed the conviction and confiscation. In Criminal Revision case No. 465/84 when the matter had come up before a single Judge, on 13-8-1986 the learned Judge, following the decision of another single Judge reported in Chennu-pati Vazeer v. State of A.P., (1980) 2 Andh LT 391 held that rule 3 is inapplicable to the facts in this case; it is only a preparatory for transit and that, therefore, rule does not create any offence. Accordingly, he set aside the conviction and sentence. Thus, this appeal, by special leave.