Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.-

These four Criminal Revision cases arise under the following circumstances. The petitioners in these revision cases are merchants carrying on business at Kakinada. On 10th December, 1964, each of them was found to be in possession of more then five kilograms of sandalwood. Therefore, the District Forest Officer, Kakinada, filed complaints against them seeking to prosecute them for contravening Section 36-A of the Madras Forest Act (V of 1882) introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 which became law on 3rd May, 1963. The petitioners in Crl.R.C. Nos. 408, 409, 410 and 411 of 1965 were found in possession of 17 kilograms and 300 grams; 6 kilograms; 40 kilograms and 8 kilograms and 700 grams of sandalwood respectively on 10th December, 1964. In each of these cases, the accused filed petitions before the Principal Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Kakinada, who took on file the complaints, raising a preliminary objection that inasmuch as the rules framed by the Government under section 36-B of the Act prescribing the procedure for obtaining the necessary licence were not published in the East Godavari District Gazette also as required by section 64 of the Madras Forest Act they were not in force on the date when the petitioners were found to be in possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood i.e., on 10th December, 1964 and as such the complaints do not disclose any offence. The rules were framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22nd October, 1964. But they are published in the East Godavari District Gazette only on 18th February, 1965 long after the date on which the petitioners are alleged to have contravened the provisions of section 36-A of the Madras Forest Act introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963. The said objection was overruled by the Principal Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Kakinada. Then the petitioners filed revisions under sections 435 and 436, Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of Session, East Godavari division at Rajahmundry. They were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, who dismissed them. Hence these criminal revision cases are filed by the petitioners who are the four accused in those cases.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, even on the allegations in the complaints, the petitioners are not guilty of an offence punishable under section 36-E of the Madras Forest Act introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 for having contravened the provisions of section 36-A because there were no rules having the force of law in existence on 10th December, 1964, which is alleged to be the date of offence. To decide this point, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras Forest Act and the provisions introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963.

The case for the prosecution is that the petitioners contravened the provisions of section 36-A, which is as follows:

“36-A. Possession of sandalwood under licence or mark.-No person shall have in his possession any quantity of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms, unless under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in that behalf, or unless such sandalwood is marked by a Forest Officer, in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the District Forest Officer may, by order, refuse to grant or renew a licence to any applicant or licensee in respect of whom he is satisfied that by reason of his conviction of an offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder, or the previous cancellation or suspension of any licence granted thereunder, or the contravention of any of the requirements as to the possession of sandalwood, or for any other reason which may be prescribed, he is not a fit person to whom a licence may be granted or renewed under this section. Every such order shall be communicated, as soon as may be,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document