NEHRULAL MAKADIA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is said in our jurisprudence an appeal is to be provided It does not lie in the nature of things. If an appeal is provided it has also to specify the authority which will hear the appeal. The latter part of the statement is the subject in the above case.

(2.) The issue arises under Section 44(2-E) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1 of 1967 ('the Act'). In that it is specified the 'District Court' will bear appeals against orders under sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) of Section 44. The specification was considered by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 2688 of 1984 on November 16, 1984. A single judge of this court held the appeal be heard by the District Judge. The same question was considered in V.P. Nagi Reddy vs. State of A.P. #1 and it was held the appeal against orders in sub-clauses (2A) and (2-B) is to be heard by Sessions Judge in the Districts. The decision in earlier ease was not cited in the latter case. The instant case is placed before a divisional bench to revolve the conflict in the two cases.

(3.) We may start the discussion and for the background the Amendment Act 17 of 1976 to the Act may be seen. In that 'Authorised Officer' in the forest department was empowered to deal with forest offences. The Authorised officer was empowered to confiscate the forest produce, the vehicle, tools, ropes, chains, boats and cattle used in committing the forest offence. The forest produce and tools if produced before a Magistrate such a Magistrate can convict the offenders, pass a sentence and confiscate the forest produce, vehicles, etc. Against the orders of the Magistrate, an appeal is provided under Section 49. The appeal in Sec. 49 is to be heard under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a case it is needless to state the Magistrate's order is appealable to the Sessions Judge.