VAZECR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Babul Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner's lorry was used in committing a forest offence, is unsustainable. The District Forest Officer found that there was an attempt on the part of Sri M. Kama Raju of removal of the forest produce by the petitioner's lorry and that before the lorry moved, it was seized by the Forest Range Officer. Rules 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transport Rules, 1970 prohibit movement of forest produce into or from or within the State without a valid permit. Loading of the illicit timber into the petitioner's lorry, it cannot be said, amounted to movement into or from or within the State. In fact, as already stated, the finding recorded by the District Forest Officer is that there was only an attempt of removal of the illicit timber. Sri Kama Raju is no doubt guilty of the other offence of felling timber in the resetve forest illicitly, but it cannot be said that the petitioners's lorry was used in committing that offence. The District Forest Officer has therefore, no jurisdiction to confiscate the lorry inasmuch as it was not used in committing any forest offence. The learned Sessions Judge is in error in upholding the order passed by the District Forest Officer. I therefore, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge as also that passed by the District Forest Officer.

(2.) It is brought to my notice that during pendency of the Revision case, the lorry was handed over to the petitioner on his furnishing Bank guarantee in a sum of Rs, 40,000/- to the satisfaction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam. In view.of the conclusion reached by me, the Divisional Forest Officer shall refund to the petitioner the Bank guarantee furnished by him.

(3.) In the result the Appeal allowed. Revision Case allowed.