JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is preferred by the Divisional Forest Officer (A. O.), adilabad and another, questioning the judgment of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1417/1990. The respondent is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed by the respondent questioning the order of the appellant dated 28-10-1989 and the appellate order of the learned District Judge, adilabad dated 16-1-1990 in regard to the confiscation of teak-wood logs and lorry bearing M. P. 20/4717. The lorry was being driven by the owner himself.

( 2 ) ON 8-10-1989 at about 11-30 p. m. the Forest Range Officer, adilabad checked the above said lorry at Mavala check-post and found that the lorry was carrying 17 teak-wood logs measuring 1. 016 cmts. worth rs. 11,176/- without valid permrt, along with masoori dhal of 100 bags. It was then seized under Sec. 44 (2) of the A. P. Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter called the Act) and produced before the 1st appellant, the Divisional Forest officer, Adilabad (the authorised officer), for inquiry. The said officer gave notice to the writ petitioner who was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and ordered confiscation of the teak-wood logs and the lorry. The said order has been confirmed by the learned District Judge under Sec. 44 (2e) of the Act. Questioning the said orders, the respondent filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge passed the following order:"the Forest Officer has not considered the question of compounding by exercising power under Sec. 59 of the Act. The learned Government pleader submitted that since no application has been filed by the party, the same was (Sic. not) considered. However, the party is at liberty to file an application before the appellate Court within one month from to-day. "it is against this order that the Divisional Forest Officer and the Dy. Range officer have filed this appeal.

( 3 ) IN this appeal, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader, sri Chandrasekhara Reddi, that according to the provisions of the Act and the relevant rules, there is no question of any application being filed before the District Court. It is for the owner of the goods and vehicle to file an application for compounding immediately after seizure of the goods or at the inquiry before the said officer and if no application is filed before him at that stage, it is not permissible to seek compounding at any later stage, either before the authorised officer under Sec. 44 (2a) or before the appellate authority i. e. , the District Court under Sec. 44 (2e ).

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by Sri Nilind G. Gokhale that before the application for compounding is filed in the office of the Forest officer who has seized the goods, the latter must find out whether the accused is "willing" to have the offence compounded and if no such opportunity had been given, the further confiscation proceedings cannot be said to have been fairly conducted. In any event, it is open to the accused to file an application before the authorised officer or the District Court during the confiscation proceedings.

( 5 ) AS the matter is important and a large number of such cases are arising frequently, we requested Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, senior counsel, to assist us and he has made valuable submissions and we are indeed very much thankful to him. We shall first refer to Sec. 44 and Sec. 59 of the act. "sec. 44 Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure there upon: (1) Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest 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 police officer. (2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property, or the receptacle if any, in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been sc seized and shall, except w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document