STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusKORRAPATI SUBRAHMANYAM AND ORS.

                                                                                    )

A                   STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                               v.
                KORRAPATI SUBRAHMANYAM AND ORS.

                               JANUARY 13, 1995

B                    [K. RAMAWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]

         A.P. Forest Act, 1967-Sections 20, 29-A.P. Sandel-wood and Red-
    sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969-Rules 2(3) and 3-"Forest Produce in
    Transit''-Meaning of.
c
           On the intervening night of Feburary 14 and 15, 1978, officers of the
    Forest Department seized 28 logs of red sander-wood loaded in a lorry and
    118 logs kept on the road side for being loaded in the lorry. The trial court
    found respondents guilty of offence under Section 20 read with Section 29
    of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, read with Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh San-
D   del-wood and Red-sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969. The respondents
    were comicted. The Additional Session Judge confirmed the conviction and
    confiscation. A Single Judge of the High Court relying on the earlier judg·
    ment in Chennupati Vazeer v.State ofA.P., (1980) 2 ALT 391 held that Rule
    3 of the A.P. Sandel-wood and Red-sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969 was
E   not applicable as forest produce was preparatory for transit and not in
    transit. Hence this Appeal.

          SubselJUently, a Division b.ench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
    Govt. ofA.P. v. C. Satyanarayana Raju, [1993] 1ALT147 expressly over-
    ruled the ratio in Vizeer's case and held that the red-sanders when at-
F   tempted to be transported by loading amounted to an offence of forest
    produce in transit.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : 1.1. The movement of forest produce unless accompanied by
G a permit amounts to 'forest produce in transit' and an offence under the
    A.P. Forest Act, 1967. Loading of 18 logs of red sander-wood and storage
    of 118 logs of red sander-wood on the road margin for loading into lorry
    would amount to 'forest produce in transit' within the meaning of Rule 3(2)
    of the A.P. Sandel-wood and Red-sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969.
H                                                             [248-H, 249-A-B]
                                        246
                     STATEv. K.SUBRAHMANYAM                              247

       1.2. No permit had been issued by the competent authority for transit    A
of the red sander wood to the lorry owner or the persons found in possession
at the time of loading. Thereby the offence under Rule 3 read with Ss. 20 and
29 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 was rightly found by the Court below.
Respondent's conviction and sentence as c?nfirmed by the appellate court
are upheld. Confiscation of the lorry is also upheld. [249-C-D]
                                                                                B
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.71 of 1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.86 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Crl. R.C. No. 456 of 1984.
                                                                                c
      G, Prabhakar for the Appellant.

      V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                D
      Mr. V.G. Pragasam, learned counsel for the respondents, states that
though on the last occasion he had undertaken to file Vakalatnama for
respondent Nos. 1 and 6, despite his best efforts, he could not contact them
and obtain instructions for filing vakalat. Therefore, we deem that respon-
dent Nos. 1 and 6 are not interested in contesting the matter. They are set     E
ex-parte.

      Leave granted.

      On the intervening night of February 14 and 15, 1978, the lorry - APD
3156, was being loaded with 28, logs of red sander-wood at tri-junction         F
road, one mile away from Sanipaya near Marrimanu in Cuddapah District
of Andhra Pradesh State. The officers of the forest department, who were
in watch, 'proceeded to the place and seized the 28 sander-wood logs
loaded in the lorry under a Panchnama-Ex.p8. They also seized 118 logs
which were kept O!l the road side for being loaded into the lorry. The
Statements of the accused 2 lo 7 who were apprehended on the spot, were         G
recorded under Ex.Pl to P7. The lorry trip sheet Ex. P-19 was also seized.
Thereafter , they were charged for the offence under s.20 read with s.29 of
the AP. Forest Act, 1967, (for short, 'the Act') read with Rule 3 of the
AP. Sandel-wood and Red-sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, (for short,
'the Rules'). The Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence found the      H
    248                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A   respondents guilty and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprison-
    ment for three months and imposed fine of Rs. 100 on each of them, in
    default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one week.
    Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The lorry M0-1 was
    also ordered to be confiscated, if not it was done by the competent
    authority under s.44 of the Act. On appeal, learned Addi. Sessions Judge,
B   by his judgment dated October 1, 1985 confirmed the conviction and
    confiscation. In criminal revision case No. 465/84 when the matter had
    come up before a Single Judge, on 13.8.86 the learned Judge, following the
    decision of another Single Judge reported in Chennupati Vazeer v. State of
    A.P., (1980) 2 ALT 391, held that rule 3 is inapplicable to the facts in this
c   case; it is only a preparatory for transit and that, therefore, rule does not
    create any offence. Accordingly, he set aside the conviction and sentence.
    Thus, this appeal, by special leave.

           Subsequently, when the matter was referred to the Division Bench in
    Government of A.P. v. C. Satyanarayana Raju, [1993) 1 ALT 147, the
D   Division Bench of the High Court held that the red-sanders when at-
    tempted to be transported by loading, it would amount to an offence of
    forest produce in transit within the meaning of Rules 2(3) of the Rules read
    with Rules 3 and 4 and that, therefore, the confiscation of the lorry was
    held to be valid. The Division Bench expressly overruled the ratio in
E   Vazeer's case. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the Single Judge was
    not right in his conclusion that it is not in transit.

    Rule 2(3) of the Rules provides that :

             "Forest produce in transit" includes forest produce found stored
F            in any place or in the margin of any public road or cart tract or
             footpath whether or not loaded in carts or other vehides and forest
             produce found in any river, canal or water course whether in rafts
             or not".

    The definition clearly states that a forest produce found stored in any place
G or in the margin of any public road or a cart track or footpath whether or
    not loaded in cart or other vehicle is a forest produce in transit. The
    distinction preparation or completion of the act of forest bears no
    relevance. The prohibition contained in Rule 3, namely, that no forest
    produce shall be moved into or from or within the State by land or water,
H   unless such produce is accompained by a permit therefore issued under
                    STATE v. K SUBRAHMANYAM                            249

Rule 5 and produced for check immediately on demand is a contravention        A
under s.20 read with s.29 of the Act which is a forest offence. Therefore,
the High Court was not right in holding that it is not in transit and that,
therefore, the offences under Rule 3 read with ss.20 and 29 of the Act have
not been made out.

       Accordingly, we hold that the loading of 18 logs of red sander-wood B
and storage of 118 read sander-wood on the road margin for loading into
the lorry, but for the interception, would be forest produce in transit within
the meaning of Rule 3(2) of the Rule. Admittedly, no permit was issued
by the competent authority for transit of the red sanders wood seized from
the lorry owner and the persons were found in possesion at the time of C
loading. Thereby the offence under Rule 3 read with ss.20 and 29 of the
Act was rightly found by the Court below. Accordingly, minimum sentence
has been awarded. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The acquittal by the
Single Judge is set aside and the conviction and sentence recorded by the
trial court as confirmed by the appellate court are upheld. The confiscation
of the lorry also is upheld, if not already confiscated by any order of the D
competent authority under s.44 of the Act.

A.G.                                                      Appeal allowed.