Judgment: Of the four accused who were charged with commission of offence punishable under section 29(4)(b) of the Forest Act read with rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, A-1, A-2 and A-4 were acquitted, but A-3 was convicted of the above offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay, a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. 2. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction of A-3 but modified the sentence to one of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Hence this Revision. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27th March, 1976 between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., the accused were found transporting red sanders wood and they were caught while transporting the same. Although the statement of A-3 was recorded as envisaged in rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the compounding Rules), nevertheless the Forest Officer competent to compound refused to compound the offence and consequently he sought permission of the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer or the Divisional Forest Officer to prosecute the accused as envisaged in rule 12 of the above-said Rules. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the main witnesses to prove the offence. P.W.1 is the Forest Range Officer. Rayachoty, P.W.3 is the Forest Range Officer, Rajampet and P.W.4 is the Karnam of Gundlur village. Both the Courts, as stated earlier, relied upon the evidence of these witnesses and also the statement given by the accused in Form A of the Compounding Rules and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated herein above. 4. The main contention advanced by Mr. Ella Reddy in this case is that the prosecution of the petitioner (A-3) is not maintainable having regard to the provisions of the Compounding Rules. The Forest Officer, having accepted the statement of the petitioner (A-3) in Form A as envisaged in rule 5, ought to have passed an order refusing to compound the offence under rule 9 in which case the petitioner would have gone in appeal as envisaged in rule 10. The Forest Officer, having accepted the statement of the petitioner (A-3) in Form A as envisaged in rule 5, ought to have passed an order refusing to compound the offence under rule 9 in which case the petitioner would have gone in appeal as envisaged in rule 10. The Officer not having passed any order as envisaged in rule 9, therefore, deprived him of his right of appeal and consequently, having regard to the provisions of rule 12, the Sub-Divisional, Forest Officer or Divisional Forest Officer was incorrect in giving permission to prosecute the petitioner. I regret I cannot accede to this contention. Rule 10 provides for an appeal only if a person is aggrieved by an order passed by an officer under rule 8. Rule 10 is completely silent in regard to an appeal preferred against an order of a competent officer refusing to compound the offence under rule 9,. Rule 9 provides that every officer competent to compound the offence may refuse to compound an offence in any particular case Without assigning any reasons. Therefore, this power given to the Forest Officer to refuse to compound the offence is absolute against which there is no provision in the Rules for preferring an appeal. Consequently, when once the competent authority refuses to compound an offence, then the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer or Divisional Forest Officer will sanction the prosecution of the accused under rule 12. Hence the contention advanced by Mr. Ella Reddy cannot be accepted. 5. The next contention of Mr. Ella Reddy was that the lower Courts relied upon the statement given by the accused in Form A of the Compounding Rules. To my mind, this contention also cannot be acceded to, because both the lower Courts have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and the statement given by A-3 in Form A. Therefore, the conviction of the accused has to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. 6. Mr. Ella Reddy submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 59 days. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Further, the petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 instead of Rs. 500 as ordered by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Further, the petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 instead of Rs. 500 as ordered by the lower appellate Court. In case of default, the petitioner will Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. With this modification, the revision is dismissed.