IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1254 OF 2009 Dt.03.11.2009 Between: The Divisional Officer Flying Squad Division Warangal, Warangal District and another … Appellants And Y. Kishan Rao and another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: G.P. for Forest Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1254 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dt.31.3.2009 passed in W.P. No.25884 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by original respondents 1 and 2 – Government authorities. By virtue of the impugned order, the petition was allowed for the reason that the appellant authorities had passed an order compounding the offence, though no statement as prescribed under Form-D was filed by respondent No.1 – original petitioner, who was charged with commission of a forest offence. Moreover, the amount, which was payable for compounding the offence, had been recovered from the original petitioner, which was not permissible. In the aforestated circumstances, the petition was allowed and being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. We had called upon the learned Government Pleader appearing for Forest Department to adduce any evidence to show that the original petitioner, who was alleged to have committed the forest offence, had made any statement or had filed any form showing his willingness for compounding the offence. But, the learned Government Pleader has fairly submitted that no such record was available. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be improper, as no person can be held guilty without his consent for compounding an offence. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not see any substance in the appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed. Needless to say that it would be open to the Forest Department to proceed further with the offence charged against the original petitioner and the amount, which has been wrongly recovered from the original petitioner, shall be returned forthwith to him. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2619 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.11.2009 bnr