Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.- These four Criminal Revision cases arise under the following circumstances. The petitioners in these revision cases are merchants carrying on business at Kakinada. On 10th December, 1964, each of them was found to be in possession of more then five kilograms of sandalwood. Therefore, the District Forest Officer, Kakinada, filed complaints against them seeking to prosecute them for contravening Section 36-A of the Madras Forest Act (V of 1882) introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 which became law on 3rd May, 1963. The petitioners in Crl.R.C. Nos. 408, 409, 410 and 411 of 1965 were found in possession of 17 kilograms and 300 grams; 6 kilograms; 40 kilograms and 8 kilograms and 700 grams of sandalwood respectively on 10th December, 1964. In each of these cases, the accused filed petitions before the Principal Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Kakinada, who took on file the complaints, raising a preliminary objection that inasmuch as the rules framed by the Government under section 36-B of the Act prescribing the procedure for obtaining the necessary licence were not published in the East Godavari District Gazette also as required by section 64 of the Madras Forest Act they were not in force on the date when the petitioners were found to be in possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood i.e., on 10th December, 1964 and as such the complaints do not disclose any offence. The rules were framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22nd October, 1964. But they are published in the East Godavari District Gazette only on 18th February, 1965 long after the date on which the petitioners are alleged to have contravened the provisions of section 36-A of the Madras Forest Act introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963. The said objection was overruled by the Principal Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Kakinada. Then the petitioners filed revisions under sections 435 and 436, Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of Session, East Godavari division at Rajahmundry. They were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, who dismissed them. Hence these criminal revision cases are filed by the petitioners who are the four accused in those cases. Then the petitioners filed revisions under sections 435 and 436, Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of Session, East Godavari division at Rajahmundry. They were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, who dismissed them. Hence these criminal revision cases are filed by the petitioners who are the four accused in those cases. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, even on the allegations in the complaints, the petitioners are not guilty of an offence punishable under section 36-E of the Madras Forest Act introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 for having contravened the provisions of section 36-A because there were no rules having the force of law in existence on 10th December, 1964, which is alleged to be the date of offence. To decide this point, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras Forest Act and the provisions introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioners contravened the provisions of section 36-A, which is as follows: “36-A. Possession of sandalwood under licence or mark.-No person shall have in his possession any quantity of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms, unless under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in that behalf, or unless such sandalwood is marked by a Forest Officer, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the District Forest Officer may, by order, refuse to grant or renew a licence to any applicant or licensee in respect of whom he is satisfied that by reason of his conviction of an offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder, or the previous cancellation or suspension of any licence granted thereunder, or the contravention of any of the requirements as to the possession of sandalwood, or for any other reason which may be prescribed, he is not a fit person to whom a licence may be granted or renewed under this section. Every such order shall be communicated, as soon as may be, to the applicant or the licensee, as the case may be.” It will be seen from the said section that no person shall have in his possession any quantity of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms except under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in that behalf. Every such order shall be communicated, as soon as may be, to the applicant or the licensee, as the case may be.” It will be seen from the said section that no person shall have in his possession any quantity of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms except under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in that behalf. Under the section, the licence to be granted by the District Forest Officer is to be in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 36-B empowers the Government to make rules to provide for: (a) the form and manner in which applications for licences may be made; (b) the terms and conditions which may be included in any licence and the fees for the grant of such licence; and (c) the grant of duplicate licences and the renewal of licences and fees for the same. Section 36-E provides for penalties and reads as follows: “36-E. Penalties.-Whoever, in contravention of this Chapter or of any rule made or licence granted thereunder, possesses sandalwood, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which shall not exceed one year and with fine which shall not exceed ten thousand rupees.” It is already noted that section 36-A provided that no person shall have in his possession any quantity of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms except under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in such manner as may be prescribed. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners contravened the provisions of section 36-A inasmuch as they were in possession of greater quantity titan five kilograms of sandalwood on 10th December, 1964 and thereby incurred the penalty prescribed by section 36-E. It may be noted that section 36-E is a stringent provision and makes it obligatory for the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months and fine. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that mere possession of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms by itself is not an offence, but the offence consists in being in possession of more then five kilograms of sandalwood without a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in such manner as may be prescribed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that mere possession of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms by itself is not an offence, but the offence consists in being in possession of more then five kilograms of sandalwood without a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in such manner as may be prescribed. It is pointed out that the form and manner in which applications for licences may be made and granted are to be prescribed by rules made by the Government under section 36-B of the Act. Reliance is placed upon section 64 and it is contended that, inasmuch as the rules were not published in the East Godavari District Gazette till 18th February, 1965 when alone the rules can be said to have come into force, the petitioners cannot be said to be guilty of contravening the provisions of section 36-A for being in possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood without a licence from the District Forest Officer, inasmuch as there is no procedure prescribed by any rules in force for obtaining such a licence. Section 64 prescribes: “All rules made by the Government under this Act shall be published in the Official Gazette and in the Official Gazette of the districts affected thereby, and shall thereupon have the force of law. * * * * * * *” No doubt, in the present case, the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 came into force on 3rd May, 1963 and it introduced section 36-A. But it also introduced section 36-B, which empowers the Government to make rules providing for the form and manner in which the applications for licence nay be made and the terms and conditions which may be included in any licence and the fees for the grant of such licence. The rules were in fact framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22nd October, 1964. But in view of section 64 of the Act, they would not have the force of law unless and until they are published in the Official Gazettes of the districts also. In this case, they were published in the East Godavari District Gazette only on 18th February, 1965. But in view of section 64 of the Act, they would not have the force of law unless and until they are published in the Official Gazettes of the districts also. In this case, they were published in the East Godavari District Gazette only on 18th February, 1965. Therefore, till 18th February, 1965, there was no procedure prescribed by law for obtaining a licence from the District Forest Officer for being in possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood. It may be noted that the offence punishable under section 36-E of the Act does not consist of mere possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood; but it consists of possession of more than five kilograms of sandalwood except under a licence granted by the District Forest Officer in the manner prescribed by the rules. Since, on the date of the alleged offence i.e., 10th December, 1964, no rules having the force of law were made by the Government under section 36-B providing for the form and manner in which applications for licences may be made and the terms and conditions which may be included in any licence and the fees for the grant of such licence, it cannot be said that the petitioners contravened the provisions of section 36-A of the Act so as to make them liable to be punished under section 36-E. These revision cases are, therefore, allowed and the complaints filed by the District Forest Officer, East Godavari, before the Principal Judicial Second-class Magistrate, Kakinada, under section 36-E read with section 36-A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Laws (Amendment) Act, 1963 are quashed. A.B.K. ----- Revisions allowed; Complaints quashed.