IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.5086 of 2004 Between: A.Ahammad Hussain, S/o.Masum Sab, Aged 64 years, R/o.Atmakur (V) & (M), Kurnool District. ...Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life, Atmakur, Kurnool District, And two others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Babji, For Sri K.Venkatesh. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appeared for respondent No.3. This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5086 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 17.02.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 and the proceedings dated 17.04.2002 passed by respondent No.1. Two lorries bearing registration Nos.AP 21 U 3866 and AP 21 U 4179 were found involved in commission of a forest offence. Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. By the order dated 17.04.2002 respondent No.1 directed confiscation of the two lorries along with forest produce. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, which was taken on file as Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002. The said appeal was allowed in part and the order to the extent of confiscation of the lorries was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge directed payment of compounding fee of Rs.39,860/- as against a sum of Rs.1,85,905/- recommended towards the compounding fee by the departmental Officials on 16.05.2000 when the enquiry before respondent No.1 was pending. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order passed by respondent No.1 only civil appeal was maintainable and that therefore registration of the case as Criminal Appeal by the Sessions Judge was illegal and without jurisdiction. However, after realizing that such an argument is a self-defeating one inasmuch as the petitioner will be deprived of the benefit of the order passed by the Sessions Court setting aside the confiscation orders, learned Counsel has not pressed that argument. The only other contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that direction to pay a compounding fee of Rs.39,860/- is improper because the amount of compounding fee was excessive and creates enormous burden on the petitioner. Having carefully considered the facts of the case which were thoroughly discussed by the Sessions Court in the impugned judgment, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. While disposing of the writ petition this Court will not act as an appellate authority to substitute its own view even where two views are possible. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Criminal Court in imposing the compounding fee of Rs.39,860/-. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:18.12.2009 vs