Transporting timber without a valid permit violates the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act and Timber Transit Rules.

1. Petitioners have been convicted by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Markapur in C. C. No. 735 of 1965, under S.35 and S.36 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act read with R.10 of the Timber Transit Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200-00, Rs. 100-00 and Rs. 100-00 respectively, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. The trial Court also ordered confiscation of the forest produce which was seized from the accused by the forest authorities. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.

2. The case for the prosecution is as follows :
That on 24-8-1965 at about 1 A.M., at Dornal at the junction of Kurnool - Guntur and Srisailam road, the accused were found illicitly transporting green teak, roughly dressed M.Os. 1 to 394 by a lorry A. P. Q. 2245, without a valid permit, that A - 1, who claimed to be the owner of the forest goods, showed a permit Ex. P - 1 to P.W. 1, the Forest Range Officer, Dornal and P.Ws. 2 and 3 the Tahsildar and Forest Guard, Pedda Manthala, when questioned about the illicit transport; that Ex. P - 1 was not a valid permit; that P.Ws. 1 to 3 seized the forest produce described as felloes and spokes after obtaining Exs. P - 3 and P - 4, the statements of the accused admitting their guilt, in the presence of P.W. 4, a landholder of Dornal and P.W. 5 the karnam of Dornal; that P.W. 6, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Markapur stopped the lorry, verified the load and collected the sales - tax of Rs. 54-00 and a penalty of Rs. 270-00 from A - 1 under Ex. P - 11; that M. O,s. 1 to 394 were not sawn and not fashioned, that they are illicit forest produce and that the accused have committed the offences charged against them.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty. It is further stated by A - l in his statement under S.342 Criminal P.C., that he had purchased M. Os. 1 to 394 from D.W. 2 and was bringing them from the saw mill of D. W. 1, and hence he is not liable to be punished. A - 2 is the driver of the lorry and A - 3 is the cleaner. Both A - 2 and A - 3 also pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and filed Exs, P - 1 to P - 15 in support of its case. P.W. 1 is, the Range Officer, Dornal, who speaks to the fact that the goods were green and roughly dressed with axe and not fashioned, that not even a single piece was sawn, that logs would normally be sawn into pieces in the villages but not made into pieces by axe, that smugglers cut the trees and then cut the timber into pieces by axe and take then away, as they do not take sawers leading to detection. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 the Thanadar of Dornal and P.W. 3 the Forest Guard support the prosecution case in its entirety. P.W. 4, a landlord of Dornal and P.W. 5, the Karnam of Dornal are panchayatdars in whose presence M. Os. 1 to 394 have been seized and Exs. P - 3 and P - 4 the statements of A - 1 and A - 2 admitting their guilt, were recorded. P.W. 6 is the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Markapur, who came in a jeep and stopped the lorry and after verification, collected the sales - tax and penalty as the accused were trying to carry the goods without paying the requisite Sales - tax. P.W. 7 is the Forest Range Officer, G.B.M. Velugodu, who speaks to the fact that M.Os. 1 to 394 look green and about 3 to 4 months old, that they are not sawn, that they are roughly dressed with axe, that "Badisa" and axe would have been used to dress the M.Os. It is further stated by him in the cross - examination that the forest authorities allow only the logs to pass and not peices from the place of felling and that spokes' and 'felloes' are not allowed to be made in the for