M PITCHAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Criminal Revision Cases arise under the following circumstances; The petitioners in these Revision Cases are merchants carrying on business at Kakinada. On 10/12/64. each of them was found to be in possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood. Therefore, the District Forest Officer, Kakinada filed complaints against them seeking to prosecute them for contravening Sec. 36-A of the Madras Forest Act (Act No. V of 1882) introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963. which became law on 3/5/1963. The petitioners in Crl. Revision Cases Nos. 408, 409, 410 and 411 of 1965 were found in possession of 17 kilograms and 300 grams; 16 kilograms; 40 kilograms and 8 kilograms and 700 grams of sandalwood respectively on 10/12/64. In each of these cases, the accused filed petitions before the Principal Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate, Kakinada, who took on file the complaints, raising a preliminary objection that inasmuch as the rules framed by the Government under Sec. 36-B of the Act prescribing the procedure for obtaining the necessary licence were not published in the East Godavari District Gazette also as required by Sec. -64 of the Madras Forest Act, they were not in force on the date when the petitioners were found to be in possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood i.e., on 10/12/64 and as such the complaints do not disclose any offence, The rules were framed by the Sate of Andhra Pradesh and were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22/10/64. But they are published in the East Godavari District Gazette only on 18/2/65 long after the date on which the petitioners are alleged to have contravened the provisions of Sec. 36-A of the Madras Forest Act introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendament) Act, 1963. The said objection was over-ruled by the Principal Judl. 2nd Class Magistrate, Kakinada. Then the petitioners filed Revisions under Sec. 435 and 438 Cr. P.C. before the Court of Session, East Godavari division at Rajahmundry. They were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari who dismissed them. Hence these Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the Petitioners, who are the four accused in those cases. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, even on the allegations in the complaints, the petitioners are not guilty of an offence punishable under Sec. 36-E of the Madras Forest Act introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 for having contravened the provisions of Sec. 36-A because there were no rules having the force of law in existence on 10- 12-64, which is alleged to be the date of offence, To decide this point it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras Forest Act and the provisions introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Law (Amendment) Act, 1963.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the petitioners contravened the provisions of Sec. 36-A. which is as follows:--

(3.) It will be seen from the said Sec. that no person shall have in his possession any quantity of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms except under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in that behalf. Under this Sec. , the licence to be granted by the District Forest Officer is to be in such manner as may be prescribed. Sec. 36-B empowers the Govt. to make rules to provide for: