JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs; “i) Call for records leading to Exhibit P2 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions; ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to compound the offence as provided under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act; iii) Direct the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P1 afresh and compound the offence booked as against the petitioners without insisting the personal appearance of the petitioners and report of the investigating officer; iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Writ petitioners are accused in O.R No.05/2021 of Peruvannamuzhi Forest Station registered by the 2nd respondent for offences punishable under Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (For short, ‘the Act’). The allegation against them was that on 22.09.2021, they were found in possession of 54.3 Kgms of sandal wood, tools and instruments for cutting sandal woods in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-56C-441. All the above offences are compoundable under Section 68 of the Act and thereupon, petitioners filed a compounding petition before the 1st respondent on 26.11.2021, copy of which petition and the postal receipt evidencing the forwarding of the above petition before the 1st respondent are also produced alongwith as Exts.P1 and P1(a). Vide judgment dated 13.12.2021, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 within a time frame, true copy of which judgment is produced alongwith as Ext.P2. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2, the 1st respondent recorded in it’s order passed on 19.01.2022 that the accused did not appear personally on 14.01.2021 but were represented by counsel who laid vakalth for them. It was further recorded that a report of the Investigating Officer is very much essential for compounding the offences and therefore, it was called for from him. It was informed by the Investigating Officer that the accused are not traceable after dismissal of their bail application and therefore they were not interrogated. According to them, therefore a reasonable conclusion on compounding could not be arrived at and accordingly the compounding application was not considered. It was informed by the Investigating Officer that the accused are not traceable after dismissal of their bail application and therefore they were not interrogated. According to them, therefore a reasonable conclusion on compounding could not be arrived at and accordingly the compounding application was not considered. The true copy of the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the 1st respondent, referred to above is appended to as Ext.P3. In the aforesaid circumstances that the writ petition is filed seeking for the above reliefs. 3. Going by Ext.P3 order under challenge, it is found that the application seeking for compounding was rejected by the 1st respondent, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for further interrogation. Section 68 of the Act being apposite in the context is extracted hereunder; “68. Power to compound offences. -(1) Any forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests may accept from any person, reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence other than an offence under section 62 or section 65, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which may have been committed and where any property has been seized as liable to confiscation, may release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer or confiscate such property to the Government. (2) On the payment of such sum of money or such value or both as the case may be, to such officer, the accused person, if in custody shall be discharged, the property seized shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property.” 4. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 68, any Forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests is empowered to accept from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence other than an offence under Section 62 or Section 65, a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which he may have been committed and where any property has been seized from him as liable for confiscation, the officer may release the same on payment of the value thereon as estimated by such officer or confiscate such property to the Government. Sub-section (2) says that on payment of a sum of money or value or both as the case may be, the accused person if they are in custody shall be discharged and the property seized shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. Sub-section (1) of Section 68 says that any forest offence other than one coming under Section 62 or Section 65 can be compounded by a person, who is suspected of having committed such offence. In the case on hand, O.R was registered against the petitioners by the 2nd respondent for offences under Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that the offences for which the crime stands registered are compoundable ones under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, when a person suspected of commission of offences other than those coming under Section 62 & 65 of the Act approaches an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests, the latter shall accept from that person a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence, which he may have committed. Similarly, if any property has been seized from him as liable to confiscation, the officer referred to above may release the same on payment of the value of property as estimated by him. If the person does not pay the value of property, the officer shall confiscate such property to the Government. Sub section (2) of Section 68 of the Act provides that when payment towards compensation or value of the property is made, the accused if in custody shall be discharged and the property seized shall be released to him. Thereupon the officers shall put an end to all further proceedings against the person or his property. 5. Therefore, there is no need for the petitioners to present themselves before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation as stated in the impugned order. In the case on hand, petitioners have moved an application as Ext.P1, seeking for compounding of the offences, for commission of which they are suspected of. The offences alleged against them are also compoundable ones as per Section 68 of the Act. It is learnt from the impugned order that a counsel, who has laid vakalath for the petitioners was present before the 1st respondent. The offences alleged against them are also compoundable ones as per Section 68 of the Act. It is learnt from the impugned order that a counsel, who has laid vakalath for the petitioners was present before the 1st respondent. Section 68 of the Act does not mandate that the accused seeking compounding must be present before the authority personally. It only says that a suspect of commission of an offence under the Forest Act other than one under Section 62 or Section 65, can apply for compounding. The petitioners herein are suspect of commission of offences under Sections 47B, 47C, 47E, 47G and 47H of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners can appear personally or through a counsel engaged by them for compounding of the offences and in that event, the 1st respondent shall pass an order as contemplated under Section 68(2). In the above circumstances, Ext.P3 order is only liable to be set aside. In the result, Writ Petition (Crl.) is allowed. Ext.P3 order is set aside. The 1st respondent shall permit the petitioners to compound the offences through their counsel and pass appropriate orders of compounding as contemplated under Section 68 of the Act and shall discharge the petitioners if they are in custody and release the properties seized and liable for confiscation and close all further proceedings in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment by the 1st respondent or production of one by the petitioners before him.