P LAKSBMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 1978 confirming the order passed by the Divisional Forest Range Officer, Cuddapah in Offence No. 174/77-78 dated 27-3-1978 ordering the confiscation of lorry APD; 3005 to the State.

(2.) The second petitioner is the owner of the lorry APD. 3005. The first petiiioner purchased the same from the second petitioner under hire purchase agreement dated 19-11-1977 According to the agreement, the consideration has to be paid by the first petitioner to the second under instalments and the last instalment had to be paid on 19-5-1979. Only one instalment was paid by the first petitioner to the second petitioner after he parchesed the same under the agreement dated 19-11-19 7. But before the other instalments were paid, the lorry was involved in a forest offence as the lorry was carrying 440 sandal wood billests and it was caught on 28-12-1977 at about 4 a.m. by the Forest Department authorities when the lorry came from Kodur side and was proceeding towards Cuddapah. In that lorry, A-1 the owner of the sandal-wood billets, A-2 the first petitioner, A-3 the driver and A-4 the cleaner were found travelling at the time of the seizure. The forest Range officer Seized the 440 sandal-wood billets in the presence of the panchayatdars under a panchanama. He also seized the lorry. The sandal-wood billels did not bear any hammer marks of the Forest Department or were covered by any permit. They were weighed in the presence of the Panchayatdars a nd the accused and the hammer mark was fixed on each sandal wood billet. 440 sandal wood billets weighed 91-075 Kgs. P.W. 2, the Assistant Range Officer, recorded the statements of Accused 1 to be fore the Panchayatdars. He produced the lorry as well as the 440 sandal wood billets before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuddapah. The Divisional Forest Officer after satisfying himself that a forest offence has been committed in respect of 440 sandal wood billets ordered detention of the lorry APD. 3005 and all the 440 billets of sandal wood in the custody of the Department for dealing with under sub-section (2) of Section 44 as provided by Act No. 17 of 1976. The Divisional Forest Officer issued notice to Accused 1 to 4 under Sub-section 2 (A) and 2 (B) of Section 44 of the Forest Act, 1967. Accused 1 and 2 acknowledged the notices fn the said notices, the reasons for the proposed confiscation of the lorry and the forest produce were given. Accused-1 and 2 were given ten days time from the date of receipt of the notice to show cause as to why the lorry and the forest produce of 440 sandal wood billets should not be confiscated to the State. In the notices given to accused-2, it was also mentioned that he was being given an opportuni'y of being heard, if he desired so, and if no representation within the specified period was received, and if no request was made for being heard in the matter, it would be presumed that he did not want to make any representation against the proposed confiscation of the lorry. Accused-2 submitted his representation on 3-3-1978 requesting that be might be heard in person. Accordingly, the Divisional Forest Officer. Cuddapah heard accused 2 on 18-3-1978. The Divisional Forest Officer, Cuddapah after considering the evidence of Panchayatdars, the statements of all the four accused recorded by the Assistant Range Officer on 28-12-1977 and also the enquiry conducted by him on 19-1-1978 and 18-3-1978 came to the conplusion that the lorry bad been seized while transporting 440 sandal wood billets illiciily. He, therefore, held that (he accused committed the offence under Sections 32, 36, 29 (1) read with Section 68 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and read with rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Sandalwood and Red Sanders wood Transit Rules, 1969. He also held that accused-2, who is the owner of the lorry, failed to disprove the use of the lorry APD: 3005 in the illegal transport of 440 sandalwood billets and hence, he held that the lorry had been deliberately and mischievously used by accused-2 and therefore, he ordered for confiscation of the 440 sandal wood billets and also the lorry APD: 3005 used in the commission of the offence.

(3.) Aggrieved with the said order of confiscation of lorry, accused-2 preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. The learned Sessions Judge made over the appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal The learned Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration the material that accuscd-1 to 4 were actually found in the lorry APD. 3005 transposing illicitly 440 sandalwood billets in three trunks and two bags, that the said sandal wood billets did not bear any hammer marks of the Forest department, that they were not covered by any permit, that they were seized under a panchanama in the presence of Pancbayatdars, that the panchayat- dars are all independent witnesses, that the panchanama contained all the above mentioned particulars, that the accused admitted about that illicit transporting of 440 sandal wood billets in the lorry APD. 3005 and the accused made those statements voluntarily but not under any threat or coercion and they are not hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, that the accused-2, (who was the appellant before the learned judge) had knowledge of the forest produce being transported illegally without any permit from Kodur to Cuddapah when the lorry was detained and that the Divisional Forest Officer followed the procedure prescribed wiih regard to issue of notices and also given an opportunity to the accused of being heard and came to the conclusion that the order of confiscation of 440 sandal wood billets and also the lorry APD 3005 used in committing the said offence, is not illegal,