The Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction to release seized property under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, when the property is produced before an authorized officer and not before a Magistrate.

( 1 ) W. P. No. 9630/81 : This Writ Petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Criminal miscellaneous Petition No. 1087 of 1981, dated 3-12-1981. The facts relevant are the following :

( 2 ) THE Forest authorities seized a lorry containing forest produce on 27-10-1981, on the road Gudur to Mahbubabad. It was produced before the authorized-officer contemplated by sub-section (2a) of Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. While the matter was pending before the authorised-officer, the 2nd respondent herein approached the addl. Sessions Judge. Warangal, for release of the lorry. That petition was rejected as not having been properly filed, whereupon the 2nd respondent approached the learned Sessions Judge by way of a revision, being revision Case No. 43/1981. In that revision-petition he filed Crl. Miscellaneous petition No. 1087/81 for release of the lorry. The lorry was, accordingly, released by the learned Sessions Judge.

( 3 ) THE contention of the Writ petitioner viz. , the Divisional Forest officer, Warangal (South Division), is that the order of the learned Sessions judge is without jurisdiction. His contention is that, the lorry and the forest produce were rot produced before a Magistrate, much less before the learned Sessions Judge, and that they were produced only before the authorised officer contemplated by sub-section (2-A) of section 44 of the act. It is submitted that, in such a case, the learned Sessions Judge had no power in law to direct the release of the lorry or the forest produce.

( 4 ) MR. G. Chandrasekhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent brought to our notice certain facts which have a bearing upon this writ petition. He stated that, though the authorised-officer confiscated both the lorry and the forest produce under sub-section (2-A) of Section 44, on appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, has partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of seizure and confiscation of lorry. He, therefore, submits that the question raised in this Writ Petition has become academic in view of the said final orders passed.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader, Sri P. Seetharama Raju, now wants to raise a further contention, viz. , that, under sub-section (2-E) of section 44, an appeal lies against an order passed by the authorised officer, only to a District Court which, according to him, means "district Judge" and not to a Sessions Court. He, therefore, submits that the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Warangal, in Criminal appeal No. 3/1984, is without jurisdiction. So far as this contention is concerned, we may say straight away that we do not propose to go into this question, because this contention was not raised in the writ petition. Moreover, if the petitioner thinks that the judgment and order of the learned addl. Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction, it is not as if the petitioner is without a remedy. We will, therefore, confine ourselves only to the question raised in the Writ Petition because, it is submitted by the learned government Pleader, this question is arising frequently, and an earnest appeal is made that this question should be decided by this Court to serve as a precedent.

( 6 ) IN State of Andhra Pradesh vs P. K. Mahammed (1), 1978 (I), a. P. L. J. , 391) one of us (Jeevan Reddy, J) held that the provisons of Chapter vii of the Andbra Pradesh Forest Act, as amended by Amending Act 17 of 1976, clearly disclose that the Legislature wanted to provide, and did provide two different forums, viz. , Criminal Court (Magistrate), which was an existing forum, and a new forum, viz. , Authorised Officer. It was held that the seizing authority has a discretion to produce the seized forest produce and the Vehicle etc , either before the authorised officer, or before the magistrate. It was held that, if the forest produce and the vehicle are produced before the authorised officer and no