GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. CH SATYANARAYANA RAJU
LAWS(APH)-1992-7-8
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 01,1992

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, FOREST RANGE OFFICER Appellant
VERSUS
CHEKURI SATYANARAYANA RAJU, LORRY OWNER ABD-7187, KORUPROLU VILLAGE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHENNUPATI VAZEER VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.J.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 CM.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 vs. State 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 vs. 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.'
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.