Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Government Of Andhra Pradesh Through ... vs Chekuri Satyanarayana Raju, Lorry ... on 1 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT147
JUDGMENT Jagannadha Raju, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the State against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 11686 of 1989 by the learned single Judge on 23rd August, 1989. The writ petition was filed questioning the order of the appellate authority under the A.P. Forest Act, namely, the judgment in C.M.A. No. 31 of 1988 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Khammam.
2. The facts pertaining to this appeal are not in controversy. Stated in a brief manner, they are as follows: The lorry ADB 7187 was seized at Aswaraopet on 17-8-1987 when it contained 19 rough square teak-logs of size of 0.583 cubic metres valued at Rs. 3,558-50. The forest officials found that teak-wood was being transported without the necessary permit. The action was taken under the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. After the enquiry, the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam, came to the conclusion that the forest offence has been committed under Sections 20 and 29 of A.P. Forest Act, wilfully for consideration of money. The owner of the lorry has also not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions for prevention of this offence. Therefore, he ordered for confiscation of the lorry ADB 7187 under Section 44(2)(A) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967. Aggrieved by the same, the lorry owner filed C.M.A. No. 31 of 1988 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Khammam. The Additional District Judge, placing reliance upon a decision reported in Chennupati Vazeer v. State, 1982 APLJ 33 (SNRC) came to the conclusion that in view of the principle laid down in that decision as the lorry was raided and caught when it was in a stationary condition when the teak-wood was loaded, the lorry cannot be said to be "in movement" and hence no offence is committed. The decision of the Additional District Judge is based purely upon the ratio of the decision referred to above. The State, aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority, filed W.P. No. 11686 of 1989. The learned single Judge, by his judgment dated 23rd August, 1989, followed the judgment of the single Judge in Chennupati Vazeer v. State and came to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. The present appeal is filed by the State questioning the decision of the learned single Judge.
3. Sri M. Ananda Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Forests, urged before us that the decision relied upon by the appellate authority as well as the learned single Judge is contrary to the definition of "Forest Produce in transit" given in Rule 2(3) of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the decision of the learned single Judge Justice. G. Ramanujulu Naidu, which is relied upon heavily, overlooked the definition of "Forest Produce in Transit" and it merely dealt with the language of Rules 3 and 4. The Government Pleader submits that the conclusion of the learned single Judge is not in accordance with law and hence no reliance can be placed upon that decision.
4. A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 define "Forest Produce in transit" in the following manner:
"Forest produce in transit" includes forest produce found stored in any place or in the margin of any public road or cart track or foot-path whether (or not) loaded in carts or other vehicles forest produce found in any river, canal or water course whether in rafts or not."
When we come to Rules 3 and 4 we find that Rule 3 mentions that "No forest produce shall be moved into or from or within the State by land or water, unless such produce is accompanied by a permit therefor issued under Rule 5 and produced for check immediately on demand". Rule 4 mentions that "Timber exceeding 25 cms. in girth at its thickest part and one meter in length, except timber sawn into sizes shall not be moved into or from or within the State of Andhra Pradesh; unless such timber bears a distinguishable Government transit mark of such description as mentioned in the permit authorising transit thereof accompanying the said timber."
5. It is not disputed that in the present case, the lorry was seized by the forest officials when the timber was loaded into a stationary lorry at Aswaraopet. Immediately it was seized as it was not accompanied by a permit. Considering the language of Rule 2(3), which is very wide in its amplitude, "forest produce in transit" includes even timber loaded into any vehicle and it also includes timber merely stored by the side of a public road or cart-track or foot-path. In view of this definition, it is not correct to say that unless the lorry is in movement, the timber is not being moved as contemplated by Rule 3. The decision reported in Chennupati Vazeer v. State (1 supra) does not refer to the definition of "forest Produce in transit" and His Lordship was considering merely the language of Rules 3 and 4 overlooking the definition given in the Transit Rules. In our considered opinion, the ratio decidendi of that decision is not correct when we take into consideration the definition of "Forest produce in transit" given in Rule 2(3) and we accordingly overrule the same.
6. The decision of the appellate authority as well as the learned single Judge is purely based upon the decision in Chennupati Vazeer v. State (1 supra), which is an incorrect decision. Hence the order in the writ petition is not sustainable. In this context, we would like to point out that in the order passed by the Forest Officer which was considered by the appellate authority, specific mention was made regarding the definition of "forest Produce in Transit" given in Rule 2(3) of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. Obviously the appellate authority and the learned single judge were more guided by the decision reported in Chennupati Vazeer v. State (1 supra) and overlooked the definition given in Rule 2(3).
7. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the appellate authority and the order of the learned single Judge are set aside and the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer is confirmed. No order as to costs.