APHC010542102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the twenty nineth day of December two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.28265 Between: Rachagorlla Ayyappa Swamy and and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Gandham S.R. Prasad Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Forests The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the twenty nineth day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.28265 of 2025 Rachagorlla Ayyappa Swamy and another ...Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Prasad Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Monday, the twenty nineth day of December two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioners ...Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to release the property, viz., transport vehicle Ashok Leyland ‘Dosth’ vide No.AP 39 TF 9692 and finished teak cot (6X6) which are under the custody of 4th respondent / Forest Range Officer, Kannapuram, Koyyalagudem Mandal, Eluru District and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioners is briefly, as follows: a. On 20.12.2024, the petitioner No.2 is transiting the teak cot (6X6) size to his cousin at Palakunta village, Buttaigudem Mandal, Eluru district through a vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TF 9692 of the petitioner No.1 from his village of Puliramannagudem of Buttaigudem Mandal. The respondents Nos.5 & 6 seized the vehicle along with finished teak cot on its way and kept them with the respondent No.4 without following the due process of law and registered a case in Cr.No. DOR No.12/2024-25 and kept in custody with the respondent No.4 vide Form - C, dated 20.12.2025, and further issued notice, dated 20.01.2025, to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.7 was the driver of the vehicle. The respondent No.5 has been calling the petitioners day-to-day to their office at Kannapuram promising to handover the seized items, i.e., vehicle and the cot and harassing them for their own reasons. b. The petitioner No.1 is using the vehicle on rent to earn income to sustain his family. The vehicle is hypothecated with finance. Unless the vehicle is run, it is difficult for the petitioner No.1 to maintain his family and pay the amount due to the financier. The vehicle and the cot are in 3 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 the illegal custody as the A.P. Forest Products Transit Rules, 1970 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1970’) are not applicable to the subject cot, as per the clarification given by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide Ref.No.15789/Law/97, dated 07.05.1997, based on the clarification given by the government pleader for Forests of this High Court. Carrying finished wooden goods is not an offence under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short, ‘the Act, 1967’), as per the clarification given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh based on the decision of the High Court cited supra. Hence, this writ petition was filed to release the vehicle and the cot. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per the clarification given, cot is not a forest produce and the provisions of the Rules, 1970 have no application and as such, the seizure itself is illegal. He further submitted that the petitioners filed document showing the permission given to M.S.R.Murthy for the logs mentioned in the permit and corresponding e-way bill, along with the bill of Vijaya Durga Sai Timber Depot and Furniture Works, Koyyalagudem, Andhra Pradesh. Even then, the cot of the petitioner No.2 and the vehicle of the petitioner No.1 were illegally seized. He further submitted that an old cot used as a household item is exempt from the Rules, 1970 and there is no need to show any permit under any provision of law. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, placed on record written instructions of the respondent No.3 / The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Jangareddigudem, Eluru District, vide Letter Rc.No. DOR No.12/2024-25/KNP, dated 27.10.2025, and submitted that the cot as well as the vehicle were lawfully seized as the persons in possession failed to produce any valid document or transit 4 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 permit as required under the Act, 1967 or the Rules, 1970 and a case was also registered. She further submitted that several notices, dated 20.01.2025, 14.02.2025, 03.03.2025 and 01.09.2025 were issued to the petitioners to attend the enquiry and produce the documents in support of their claim, but, they failed to respond or appear before the competent authority. She further submitted that in W.P.No.13286 of 2025, this Court, by order, dated 11.08.2025, directed the office of the respondent No.3 to consider the reply, dated 26.02.2025 of the petitioners and examine the applicability of the PCCF circular ref. No.15789/Law/97, dated 07.05.1997, and pass appropriate orders and thereby, a reasoned order, dated 31.08.2025 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. She further submitted that the intention of the circular, dated 07.05.1997, is limited exclusively to face veneers, i.e., thin sheets of wood peeled or sliced from logs used in plywood manufacture and not to any and all finished timber articles. Therefore, it is not a circular of general exemption in respect of the Rules, 1970 and that the petitioners cannot fall back on such circular to a wooden cot which is a finished teak furniture item. She further submitted that under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1970, no forest produce shall be moved into, from, or within the State without a permit, unless specifically exempted, but, no such exemption as under the circular exists for furniture articles made from teak wood, and that the petitioners suddenly introduced the reference to the permit under the Rules at a belated stage as an afterthought intending to mislead the Court and evade legal consequences. She submitted that the vehicle and the cot are under the legal custody of the Forest department as per Section 44(2)(b) of the Act, 1967 and that the present petition is only frivolous with false 5 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 allegation. She further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Section Forestor and Another Vs. Mansur Ali Khan1, wherein it was held that where a forest offence is registered and confiscation proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the Forest Act, the jurisdiction to deal with the seized property, including any vehicle or forest produce, rests solely with the Authorized Officer under the Forest Act, 1967, and not with the Magistrate or any authority. She further submitted that there is no proof that the cot was made out of the wood shown in the permit, a copy of which is annexed to the petition and that the petitioners have changed their version from time to time by stating that the cot was made out of the wood for which there was already a permit granted and also stating that the cot is old one already in use and was being transported and therefore, an old cot does not require a permit. Therefore, she contended that the petitioners are not taking a uniform stand and changing versions in order to get a relief. Therefore, she requested to dismiss the petition. 5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer Section 44 of the Act, 1967, which reads as follows: “44. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure thereupon:- (1) Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, machinery and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. 1 AIR 2004 SC 1251 (2004) 1 SCC 293 6 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 (2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or the receptacle, if any, in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, except where the offender agrees in writing forthwith to get the offence compounded, without any unreasonable delay, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate: Provided that where the timber or forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the Central or State Government and the offender is not known, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to the Divisional Forest Officer. 2-A. xx xxx xxx 2-B. xx xxx xxx 2-C xx xx xxx 2-D xx xx xxx 2-E xx xx xxx (3) Any forest officer not below the rank of a Forester, who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle under sub-section (1) 7 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 and where he makes a report of such seizure to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the Magistrate. (4) Upon the receipt of any report under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, except where the offence is compounded, take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused and the disposal of the property according to law. (5) xx xxx xxx.” 6. For the purpose of better understanding, the circular memo, dated 07.05.1997 is excerpted herein below: “Sub: Acts & Rules – Clarification on applicability of transit rules – issued. Ref: 1. Deccar Veneers, Visakhapatnam, ref. dt.17.03.1997 2. Government Pleader for Forests, High Court, Letter No. Clarification/97-VTR/ Forests, Endt., dated 27.04.1997. -o0o- In the reference first cited, clarification is sought on applicability of A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 to: (i) transport of produce veneers from factory to elsewhere; (ii) applicability of transit rules for imported timber 8 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 And as per opinion of Government Pleader for Forests vide reference second cited; the following clarification is issued. 1. So far as transit permits for transportation of face veneers from factory to other place is concerned, no forest permit is required to be obtained, since the same is a finished product and not covered by A.P. Forest Produce transit Rules. 2. A.P. Forest Produce transit rules apply to the imported timber logs for the purpose of transporting from port to destination, and this rule position has been upheld by the Bench of the Honourable High Court. All the Officers are requested to keep the above rule position in view while implementing the provisions of A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. Sd/- For Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests” 7. A reading of the above circular makes it clear that the circular relates to the face veneers transported from factory clarifying that such product is not covered by the Rules, 1970 for the reason that no forest permit is required for finished product. It relates to the imported timber logs. Therefore, drawing support from the reason given in the circular, the petitioners contend that the Rules, 1970 have application to the case on hand, as the cot is a finished product. This is the subject of the case filed against the petitioners. 8. Insofar as the release of the vehicle is concerned, the decision of the Supreme Court in District Forest Officer Vs. G.V.Sudhakar Rao 9 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 and others2 was followed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) in Arun Bacher Vs. State of Telangana & two others3 and after considering several decisions on this aspect, viz., A.Sathisha Vs. The State of A.P.,4 Haji Begum Vs. State of A.P.& others5, State of A.P. Vs. Anandmal Surajmal Sethia6, The D.F.O., Warangal Vs. The District Sessions Judge, Warangal7, State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana8, State of Karnataka Vs. K.A.Kunchinammed9, Section Forestor & Another Vs. Mansur Ali Khan 10 , State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan11, State of M.P. & others Vs. Madhukar Rao12, Motilal Vs. C.B.I. & Another13, and the decision in Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Another Vs. J.K. Johnson & others14, it was held at paragraphs Nos.24, 26, 27 and 28 as follows: 2 (1985) 4 SCC 573 3 2018 (3) ALD 549 4 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 610 5 1978 SCC OnLine AP 113 6 1996 SCC OnLine AP 507 7 1984 SCC OnLine AP 171 8 (2004) 4 SCC 129 9 (2002) 9 SCC 90 10 (2004) 1 SCC 293 11 (2000) 7 SCC 80 12 (2008) 14 SCC 624 13 (2002) 4 SCC 713 14 (2011) 10 SCC 794 10 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 “24. Thus so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana concerned, because of the specific provision u/sec. 44 of the AP Forest Act, 1967, only the Forest Officials got jurisdiction either to confiscate or to release including for any interim custody and the Magistrate court concerned has no jurisdiction either under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. for ordering interim custody, once the vehicle seized produced before the Forest Officials and not produced before the Magistrate. Needless to say, in case of offence involving exclusively WLP Act, the Magistrate got jurisdiction to pass orders for custody and disposal by virtue of the Apex Court's expressions in Madhukar Rao (2008) 14 SCC 624 : 2009(1) ALT 16.1 (DN SC) (supa), J.K. Johnson AIR 2012 SC 61 : 2012 (3) ALT 48.1 (DN SC) (supra) with reference to Sections 39 read with 50 of the WLP Act. 26. Thus what the learned Magistrate taken the decision in return of the petition for interim custody sought by the present writ petitioner for want of jurisdiction referring to a Single Judge expression of this Court in A. Satheesha supra is absolutely correct. It is because though under the WLP Act, the Magistrate got jurisdiction to pass order for interim custody pending final order for forfeiture or confiscation or release of the seized property including vehicle or vessel etc. So far as the A.P. Forest Offence concerned, by virtue of Section 44 of the Act that too, once the vehicle and other property produced before the Forest Officials concerned, it is only the Forest Officials concerned that got jurisdiction for release of the vehicle 11 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 for interim custody of the vehicle subject to any bank guarantee of its value and not by Magistrate concerned where the crime is pending, with or without filing of charge sheet for ordering any interim custody under Section 451 or 457 Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate. …..” 27. …..” 27. With above clarification and clearing cloud the order of the Magistrate returning application of the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner for want of jurisdiction in view of the vehicle seized in the offence under the WLP Act and AP Forest Act is upheld for remedy is to approach the District Forest Officer who has to pass orders under the AP Forest Act Section 44 from the vehicle produced before the Forest Officials initially from seizure in the crime and not before the Magistrate. 28. Accordingly and in the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the District Forest Officer who got jurisdiction to pass property disposal orders by conducting enquiry including for any interim custody. The District Forest Officer is directed to issue show cause notice, receive explanation of owner of vehicle and on enquiry pass an appropriate order within six weeks from date of receipt of the order. Any further grievance of writ petitioner is to approach the District Court by statutory civil appeal.” 9. In the case of Arun Bacher (2 supra), the decision of the apex Court in G.V.Sudhakar Rao (1 supra) was considered, but, the previous 12 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 decisions in P.Velu Murugan Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh15 or Public Prosecutor Vs. G. Marimuthu Konar16 were not discussed. However, since the decision in Arun Bacher (2 supra) was rendered by considering the decision of the Supreme Court which is directly on the issue, this Court is of the view that the decision in Arun Bacher (supra) holds the field, and therefore, a Magistrate can only dispose of the property under Section 44(4) of the Act, 1967. But, insofar as release of property or vehicle in interim custody, it is the forest officer who is authorized under Section 44(3) of the Act, 1967 is competent to grant the relief of release of the vehicle. 10. Since a case has already been registered and an order was also passed in pursuance of the directions given in W.P.No.13286 of 2025, the petitioners have to take steps as per the law discussed above for release of the vehicle and the cot since the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act provided remedy therein. As such, it is not a case fit to grant the relief prayed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority seeking the relief as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Date: 29.12.2025 RAR 15 Crl.R.C.No.1486 of 2013, dated 07.03.2014 16 LAWS (APH)-1980-12-35/APLJ-1981-1-84