FOREST RANGE OFFICER Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE CUDDAPAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Forest Range Officer is aggrieved by the orders dated 4-7-1997 in C.M.A. No.4 of 1997 passed by the Court of District Judge, Cuddapah. Be it noted that the learned District Judge passed that order in exercise of the powers under Section 44 (2-D) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The facts are not in dispute. The lorry bearing No.AEE 6665 was seized on 8-12-1991 by forest officials. At the time of seizure, the lorry was allegedly carrying 2953 kgs. of red sander logs without any permission or otherwise. At the relevant time, the third respondent was the owner of the lorry. Against the seizure, the third respondent filed a writ petition before this Court claiming release of the lorry pending further proceedings. This Court passed orders in W.P. No.257 of 1992 on 13-1-1997 directing the release of the lorry subject to third respondent furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 and also giving an undertaking to the effect that he shall not alienate the lorry during the pendency of the proceedings. The lorry was accordingly released.

(2.) Criminal proceedings were launched in C.C. No.226 of 1994 on 4-4-1997. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet convicted A-1 and A-2 viz., the driver and the cleaner of the lorry respectively and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) The appeal to the Sessions Court being Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997 was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah on 19-1-1997. In the meanwhile, the bank guarantee expired on 5-6-1997 and inspite of notice, the third respondent did not renew the bank guarantee. Therefore, on 4-12-1994, vehicle was seized by the forest officials. The D.F.O., Rajampet passed orders after issuing notice to the third respondent confiscating the lorry as well as the red sanders to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, one Kakarlapudi Satyanarayana Raju and the third respondent-Moghal Rahim Baig, preferred C.M.A. No.4 of 1997 under Section 44 (2-E) of the Act. It was mainly contended before the learned District Judge that the third respondent herein who is the original owner of the lorry in question, sold and transferred the same in favour of Satyanarayana Raju and therefore, without notice to Satyanarayana Raju, the lorry cannot be confiscated. This order of the learned District Judge dated 4-7-1997 in the said C.M.A. is assailed in this writ petition.