J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) MOTOR Lorry No. A. P. P. 4695, belonging to the respondent Yedla Perraya was seized by the Forest Range Officer, Gokavaram, early in the morning of 25/12/1963, when it was being used without a licence for carrying eight Yegisi logs on Rajamundry-Gokavaram Road. The driver of the motor lorry and another person were tried before the 2nd Additional, 2nd Class Magistrate, Rajamundry on a complaint by the Forest Range Officer for offences under S. 35 and 36 of [he Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and the rules framed thereunder. The two accused admitted that they had committed the offences of illicit transportation of timber, and on their plea of guilty they were convicted. The respondent applied to the Trial Magistrate for an order releasing the motor lorry on the plea that the offence of transportation of timber was committed without his knowledge and that the value of the timber seized was not mure than Rs, 50.00 at the relevant time. The learned Magistrate observed :

"AFTER careful perusal of the disposition of R, W, I, I find that there is nothing in it to indicate that the petitioner knowingly lent his lorry for the illicit transport of timber on the night of 24/12/1963. There is also nothing in the case records to show that the petitioner allowed the lorry to illicitly transport the timber on the above date. I accordingly hold that the petitioner cannot be said to have knowingly allowed his lorry to illicitly transport the timber."

BUT the learned Magistrate was of the view that by Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, where it was proved that the value of the timber transported exceeded Rs. 50.00, he was enjoined to direct confiscation of the vehicle in which the forest produce was being transported without a licence. In this view the value of eight logs of timber seized from the lorry was Rs. 311.00 at the market rate in Rajamundry.

IN appeal by the respondent to the court of Session at Rajamundry the order of confiscation was set aside and the High court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order of the court of Session. The State of Andhra Pradesh has appealed to this court with certificate granted under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution.

THE Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Forest Act 5 of 1882, provides by Section 41 that when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce) such timber or produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest-officer or Policeofficer. Section 43 as amended by Act 11 of 1963, provides :

"WHERE a person is convicted of any forest offence, the court sentencing him shall order confiscation to the government of the timber or the forest produce in respect of which such offence was committed, and also any tool. boat, cattle and vehicle and any other article used in committing such offences:

PROVIDED that it shall be open to such court not to order confiscation of any tool, boat, cattle, vehicle or any other article used in committing such offence when the value of the timber or the forest produce in respect of which such offence was committed does not exceed fifty rupees."

IT may be observed that before the Forest Act was amended by Act 11 of 1963, the Magistrate was not obliged to direct confiscation of the articles, vehicles, cattle, tools or boats used for committing a forest offence.

THE Trial Magistrate was of the view that after the amendment of the Forest Act by Act Hot 1963, he had no option and he was bound on conviction of the offender in respect of any forest offence to direct confiscation of the vehicle used in the commission of such offence. Counsel for the respondent contended that if the interpretation put by the Trial Magistrate upon Section 43 as amended is correct, the enactment imposes an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the owner of the vehicle declared by Artic