The order of confiscation passed by the Forest Officer under Section 44(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, is final and binding on the appellants. The acquittal of the accused in the criminal proceedings does not entitle them to claim the return of the vehicle or the sandalwood.

JUDGMENT :

KONDAIAH, .J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against judgment of our learned brother Chowdary, J., dismissing the appellants writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the proceedings of the District forest officer, Cuddapah dated 28-7-1976 as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1976 and by the High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 189 of 1977 dated 7-2-1978 and consequently to direct the respondent to release the Ambassador Car bear-ring No. A.A.T. 2236.

2. The Ambassador car along with 117 billets of Sandal-wood was seized by the Forest Authorities on 28th July 1976 at Rajampet for contravention of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Sandal-wood and Red-Sandal Wood transit Rules by transporting the Sandal-wood billets without the requisite mark and without a transport permit by the requisite authority. The forest produce and the vehicle were seized immediately and they were produced before the District Forest Officer, Cuddapah, who recorded statements of four persons, including the second appellant herein. The commission of offence was admitted before the District Forest Officer. The accused were also produced on the same day before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rajampet. The first appellant is said to be the member of E.P.D.C. Motor Taxi Drivers Cooperative Society and he claims to be the hire purchaser of that vehicle from that Society.

3. The District Forest Officer, Cuddapah in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (2-A) of section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordered confiscation of the forest produce so seized, together with the vehicle used in committing the offence on 28-7-76 as he was satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of forest produce produced before him.

4. Against the confiscation order of the District Forest Officer, the first appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1976, under Sub-section (2-E) of section 44 of the Act as he was aggrieved by the order of the District Forest Officer, Cuddapah confiscating the forest produce and the vehicle under Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act. The appeal to the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah was dismissed. Thereupon Criminal Revision Case No. 189 of 1977 was filed before this court and the same was dismissed on 7-12-1978. The result of the aforesaid proceedings is that the order of confiscation passed by the District Forest Officer, Cuddapah on 28-7-76 under Sub-section (2-A) of section 44 was confirmed and upheld by this court in Criminal Revision case No. 189 of 1977 on 7-2-1978.

5. However, the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused, who were charged with the commission of offence of transporting sandalwood billets unauthorisedly ended in acquittal of the accused by an order of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rajampet on 17-6-1978. The Criminal appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal was also rejected by this Court on 4-12-1978.

6. The present writ petition has been filed by the appellants on the premise that the first appellant is the hire-purchaser of the vehicle and the Second appellant has an agreement to use the vehicle and they are therefore interested in the vehicle and the forest produce so seized.

7. The claim of the appellants was rejected by the learned single Judge holding that the first appellant, who was a party to the proceedings before the District Forest Officer, who confiscated the forest produce and the vehicle, and to the appeal before the District Judge and also to the revision in this Court, cannot be heard to say that the order of this court as embodied in the Criminal Revision Case shall not be given effect to. Consequently the order of confiscation has been allowed to become final and there is no error or want of jurisdiction in the earlier proceedings. Hence this wri