The question of compounding a forest offence arises only if the person accused of a forest offence expressed his willingness to have the offence compounded and to pay compensation therefor and if he gave a written undertaking in that regard in Form-A.

P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in disposing of Crl. A. No. 49/1979 filed before him under S. 49 of the A. P. Forest Act, has set aside the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 16-7-1979 confiscating the lorry APL 419 belonging to the respondent and directed fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity to the respondent to compound the offence and pay compensation therefore and the Divisional Forest Officer was also directed to act in comliance of Rule 4 of the Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules 1969. The Sessions Judge also observed that as the matter is remanded and in view of the fact that a representation was made before him on behalf of the respondent that no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witnesses through his counsel, he considered it fit and desirable to permit the respondents counsel to cross-examine the witnesses if necessary.

( 2 ) THE Public Prosecutor, in support of the revision has made two main submissions. His first submission is that the respondent has at no time expressed his willingness to compound the offence and being so, the Divisional Forest Officer had no obligation to compound the offence and even assuming that the Divisional Forest Officer had any such obligation, he declined to compound the offence and the directions given by the Sessions Judge to give an opportunity to the respondent for compounding the offence cannot be sustained. The second submission made by him is that if the record of enquiry is perused, the respondent was given every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Department and it was only after he examined some witnesses in proof of his defence and stated that he had no other question to be put to any witnesses examined by the Department, that the Divisional Forest Officer passed the order directing confiscation of the lorry and that the direction now given by the Sessions Judge to give a fresh opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses through his counsel cannot also be sustained.

( 3 ) THE material facts can be briefly noticed; The lorry in question belonged to the respondent. On the intervening night of 8-8-1978, it was found to be proceeding on the Sidhout Badvel Road. The officials of the Forest Department who had some earlier information, that some red sanders wood was being unauthorisedly transported in that lorry, were laying in wait for that lorry to come along the road. As soon as the lorry was sighted, the forest officials communicated with each other by giving torch light signals and tried to stop the lorry. The lorry picked up speed and it could ultimately be reached by the Forest Officials who chased the lorry by travelling in a jeep. As soon as the lorry was stopped the forest Officials rushed towards the lorry and caught hold of three persons. Meanwhile, six to eight persons sitting on the load, jumped down the lorry and rescued the three persons and all of them were running away. The Forest Officials chased those persons but could ultimately catch only one. A Venkat Subbaiah, the person who was transporting the red sanders wood. A total of 188 logs of red sanders wood weighing 7635 Kgs. of the value of Rs. 1,35,000. 00 was found being transported in the lorry by covering these logs with 32 banana bunches and leaves and overcovered with a tarpaulin. The respondent was identified as one of the persons initially apprehended by the Forest Officials and leaving the lorry. But the respondent ultimately succeeded in making good his escape.

( 4 ) THE concurrent findings recorded by both the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad and by the Sessions Judged, Cuddapah are that the red sanders wood was in fact being transported in the lorry APL 419, the respondent was the owner of the lorry at the relevant time and the respondent was present in the lorry and the lorry was hired by Venkat Subbaiah directly from the respondent for a hire charge of Rs. 4,000. 00. The Sessions J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document