ORDER : Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri D. Khasim Saheb, Learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the Respondents. 2. The relief sought for by the Writ Petitioner is as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in confiscating the Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 belong to the petitioner vide impugned proceedings in Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 even though the said vehicle is not involved in transportation of forest produce or commission of any act in terms of section 44 (1) of A.P. Forest Act and it is not liable to be confiscated u/s 44 (2-A) of the Forest Act and consequential judgment and decree in CMA No.1/2014 dated 28.07.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the Innova Toyota Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 to the petitioner by setting aside the orders in Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential judgment and decree in CMA No.1/2014 dated 28.07.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge Kurnool at Nandyal to the extent of Innova Toyota Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 is concerned in the interest of justice.” 3. As it is clear from the above mentioned prayer that the Authorized Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Kurnool, by Proceedings bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP dated 09.12.2013 has confiscated a lorry bearing No.HR-61-B-3517 and Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP-21- AQ-4979 along with three numbers of Cell Phones. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2014 preferred by one Yerraguntla Bala Chandrudu, owner of Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP- 21-AQ-4979. The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, by Order dated 28.07.2014 was pleased to dismiss the Appeal by holding that it is not a fit case for release of Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP-21-AQ-4979. FACTS IN BRIEF: 4. The Writ Petitioner is the owner of Innova Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 (purchased in December, 2012). The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, by Order dated 28.07.2014 was pleased to dismiss the Appeal by holding that it is not a fit case for release of Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP-21-AQ-4979. FACTS IN BRIEF: 4. The Writ Petitioner is the owner of Innova Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 AQ 4979 (purchased in December, 2012). On 08.07.2013, the Nandyal Taluq Police seized the said Vehicle alleging that the Vehicle is involved in escorting a Lorry which was illegally carrying Red Sanders Wood and Sandra logs on 08.07.2013. 5. The Police have registered a Crime No.156/2013 for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C and Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Red Sandal Possession Rules, 1989 and Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood and Red Sandal Transit Rules, 1976 and under other provisions of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.35915 of 2013 before this Hon’ble Court on 09.12.2013. While the matter was pending before this Hon’ble Court, the 1st Respondent had issued Proceedings bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P1), confiscating the forest produce along with Lorry and also the Innova Vehicle belonging to the Writ Petitioner. By virtue of the said Proceeding, this Court had disposed of W.P.No.35915 of 2013 by giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to challenge the said Proceeding bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P1). 6. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.1608 of 2014 questioning the Confiscation Orders bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP, dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P1). This Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 24.01.2014 was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Petition by giving liberty to the Writ Petitioner to challenge the same by way of statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority. 7. In terms of the Order of this Court dated 24.01.2014, the Writ Petitioner filed an Appeal bearing C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, by Order dated 28.07.2014 (Ex.P4), was pleased to dismiss the Appeal. 8. The Writ Petitioner has challenged the above said Order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, dated 28.07.2014 (Ex.P4) in the instant Writ Petition. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, by Order dated 07.08.2014 was pleased to make certain observations while passing Interim Directions. 8. The Writ Petitioner has challenged the above said Order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, dated 28.07.2014 (Ex.P4) in the instant Writ Petition. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, by Order dated 07.08.2014 was pleased to make certain observations while passing Interim Directions. The relevant portion of the Order passed in W.P.M.P.No.28137 of 2014 reads as under: “The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in the appeal C.M.A.No.1 of 14 (filed by the petitioner against the order of 1st respondent) has given a totally different reason at para-9 of his order. He has stated that the lorry in which red sander logs and Sandra logs were being carried was stuck in mud and was being pushed by six persons at the time of the raid by the police and that these six persons were travelling in the subject vehicle behind the lorry. This is not the allegation against the petitioner. Prima facie the findings of 1st respondent and the appellate authority are perverse and unsustainable. It cannot be presumed that a vehicle travelling behind a lorry carrying prohibited forest produce would automatically be involved in the offence being committed by the lorry owners or passengers and the mere fact that the occupants of the subject vehicle were found to be pushing the lorry which was stuck in mud does not lead to any presumption that they had connived with the owners of the lorry or the passengers of the lorry. Therefore, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 9. When the State had filed W.V.M.P.No.2613 of 2014, this Court was pleased to dispose of the same by Order dated 11.12.2014 by directing the Writ Petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the credit of Respondent No.1. A direction was further given to the effect that the Bank Guarantee shall be kept alive till disposal of the present Writ Petition and that the release of the Vehicle shall, however, be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. 10. As the matter stood for consideration from 2014 to till date, this matter was listed for ‘Final Hearing’ on 15.02.2023. 10. As the matter stood for consideration from 2014 to till date, this matter was listed for ‘Final Hearing’ on 15.02.2023. After having considered the elementary facts in this case, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District to submit a Comprehensive Report [through the Registrar (Judicial)] as regards the status of Crime No.156 of 2013 that was registered on 08.07.2013. 11. The Superintendent of Police, Nandyal, has submitted a Report dated 16.03.2023 to the Registrar (Judicial) stating that the Charge Sheet has been filed in this case before Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal on 07.12.2021 whereas the PCCF (HoFF), Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, had given a direction to file the Charge Sheet before Special Court in Tirupathi dealing with Red Sander Cases. Interestingly, the Memo filed by the Forest Department along with certain documents indicates that the Charge Sheet was filed in FORM-F only on 23.03.2023 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Junior-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class. While the direction was given by this Court to submit a Comprehensive Report on 15.02.2023, the Charge Sheet was filed only on 23.03.2023. This is indicative of the fact that the Charge Sheet (bearing date of filing as 07.12.2021) was in fact filed only on 23.03.2023 which is subsequent to the direction of this Court dated 15.02.2023. 12. In any case, while the Crime No.156 of 2013 (F.O.R.No.156/2013) was registered way back on 08.07.2013, the Charge Sheet dated 07.12.2021 was filed only on 23.03.2023. 13. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the allegation that his Vehicle was used as a Escort Vehicle behind the offending Lorry is false and that there is no evidence to that effect. He further submits that the Innova Vehicle, did not, admittedly, carry any prohibited forest produce and therefore, the IIIrd Additional District Judge committed an error in dismissing his Appeal. 14. He further urges that the very fact that the Official Respondents did not file a Charge Sheet even till date although the Crime was registered way back on 08.07.2013 is a sufficient proof that the Forest Officials did not have sufficient material to frame charges not only against the persons who were apprehended but also against his Innova Vehicle. 15. He further urges that the very fact that the Official Respondents did not file a Charge Sheet even till date although the Crime was registered way back on 08.07.2013 is a sufficient proof that the Forest Officials did not have sufficient material to frame charges not only against the persons who were apprehended but also against his Innova Vehicle. 15. He stoutly submits that the very fact that the Charge Sheet has not been filed for a decade of time should be one of the strong grounds on which his Writ Petition should be allowed besides the aspects on merit. 16. Sri D. Khasim Saheb, Learned Government Pleader for Forest, has opposed the Writ Petition. He submits that the Vehicles involved in the Crimes relating to forest produce which are consequently confiscated cannot be released. 17. Sri D. Khasim Saheb, learned Government Pleader for Forests has cited the following Judgments : a) 1990 (1) ALT 156 (S.B) in The Forest Range Officer, Madanapalle Vs. Pritam Singh and another. b) Civil Appeal No.991 of 2002 in State of West Bengal & Anr Vs. Mahua Sarkar dated 27.02.2008. c) 1980 (1) ALT 8 (D.B) in Mohd. Yaseen Vs. Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Rayachoti, Cuddapah Dist. 18. In the Forest Range Officer, Madanapalle Vs. Pritam Singh and another ( 1990 (1) ALT 156 (S.B), the learned Single Judge of the Court held as under: “15. In Crl. R.C. No. 471 of 1983 dated 21-11-1983 our learned brother P. Ramachandra Raju, J, held that even if the driver and cleaner are convicted that conviction cannot be relied upon as a ground to attribute knowledge or connivance to the owner. On facts, the learned Judge found that the owner had no knowledge and he did not connive at the illicit transport. However, the learned Judge had not considered the question of proof and whether the owner has discharged that burden. On facts, the learned Judge found that the owner had no knowledge. 16. In our opinion, Section 44(2-C) confers only a right of defence. When once it is proved that the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence under Section 44(2-C) the onus of proof shifts and it is for the owner to prove that it is used without his knowledge or the knowledge of his agent or the person in charge of the vehicle. When once it is proved that the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence under Section 44(2-C) the onus of proof shifts and it is for the owner to prove that it is used without his knowledge or the knowledge of his agent or the person in charge of the vehicle. If he is able to prove that he or his agent or the person in charge has no knowledge and that he has taken necessary and reasonable precautions against such use, the vehicle cannot be confiscated.” 19. In the State of West Bengal & Anr Vs. Mahua Sarkar (Civil Appeal No.991 of 2002, dated 27.02.2008), the Apex Court, cited and followed another case decided in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan ( 2000 (7) SCC 80 ). In Para No.13 of the Mahua Sarkar’s Case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “6. Chapter VI of the Act makes provisions for control of timber and other forest produce in transit. The authorised officer has the power to seize any forest produce together with all tools, boats, vehicles or cattle or any other property used in connection with the commission of an offence in respect of any forest produce. An authorised officer has also the power to release the property seized under Section 62. All timber or forest produce, which is not the property of the Government and in respect of which a forest offence has been committed and all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any forest offence are liable to forfeiture by the State Government subject to the provisions of Section 71-G of the Act. Section 71-A authorises the Forest Officer to order confiscation of the seized property in certain cases. Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 71-A or Section 71-C has the right to file an appeal to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates has been seized. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant State has submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the authorised officer or the appellate authority has to specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility of such forest produce or the property being confiscated ultimately. Generally, therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, etc., used in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released. This, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under the Act including the appellate authority from passing appropriate orders under the circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come. 8. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come. 8. The approach adopted both by the authorised officer and the High Court completely ignores the importance of the forests and the purpose of the object for which the Act was made. As the appellant State has not prayed for quashing the order of the authorised officer we refrain to deal with that even though we do not approve of it. We are, however, satisfied that the High Court had adopted a very casual approach while disposing of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides that the order impugned is contrary to law, we have our reservations with respect to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in the matter which we do not express in this case.” 20. While referring the dictum of the Apex Court, as extracted above, in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan ( 2000 (7) SCC 80 ), the Apex Court in State of West Bengal & Anr Vs. Mahua Sarkar (Civil Appeal No.991 of 2002, dated 27.02.2008) held in Para No.14 as under: “14.The High Court has not even analysed the factual position and only concluded that the vehicle was being used for carrying illegal timber without the knowledge and connivance of the owner. It has not even referred to the materials which weighed with the Forest Officer and the first appellate authority to conclude that the onus in law on the owner has not been discharged.” 21. In Mohd. Yaseen Vs. Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Rayachoti, Cuddapah Dist ( 1980 (1) ALT 8 (D.B)), the Hon’ble Division Bench had dealt with the question whether the acquittal of an accused in the criminal case for commission of forest offence would come to the help of the Appellants to claim for return of the motor vehicles used in committing that particular forest offence? while dealing with this question, a Division Bench of this Court had analytically considered Chapter VII of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, with particular reference to Sections 44 to 50. After analyzing various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, the Hon’ble Division Bench held as under: “19. while dealing with this question, a Division Bench of this Court had analytically considered Chapter VII of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, with particular reference to Sections 44 to 50. After analyzing various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, the Hon’ble Division Bench held as under: “19. A close, careful and combined reading of sections 44, 45 and 46 Of the Act would leave no doubt in our minds that sub-section (2-A) provides specifically for the confiscation of any timber or forest produce along with tools, ropes, chains, beats and vehicles used in committing the forest offence. A specific provision, which shall be given effect to in so far as this aspect is concerned, for a regular appeal, a revision and a suo motu revision is provided. This is a very effective and efficacious remedy. The orders of confiscation passed under section 44 would not in any way depend upon the result of the criminal prosecution against accused persons in respect of the forest offence, as seen from section 45 or section 46 of the Act. 21. That apart the criminal court's judgment, which ended in acquittal of the second appellant and others would not entitle him to claim return of the vehicle or the sandal-wood. The provisions of section 44 or any other section of the Forest Act would not come to the aid of the appellants herein in this regard. Mr. Innayya Reddy tries to rely upon the provisions of subsection (2) of section 44, which, according to him, are analogous to section 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act. As pointed out earlier section 44 (2) would only require the officer, be it Forest officer or police officer, who seized the forest produce along with the vehicle, to place a mark and also to produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Asst. Conservator of Forests without any unreasonable delay, Unless the offenders agree in writing forthwith to get the offence compounded or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. Option is given to the concerned officer to have resort to either of the courses indicated therein.” ANALYSIS: 22. Conservator of Forests without any unreasonable delay, Unless the offenders agree in writing forthwith to get the offence compounded or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. Option is given to the concerned officer to have resort to either of the courses indicated therein.” ANALYSIS: 22. In Para No.4 of the Impugned Order, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool has noted the grounds of Appeal, wherein, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner herein had stated that one Sri Panyam Ashok Kumar (A.1) came to him on the night of 07.07.2013 and requested the Writ Petitioner to give his vehicle to attend a function; that as the said Panyam Ashok Kumar (A.1) is a relative of the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner gave his vehicle to him; that on the next day i.e., on 08.07.2013, the Writ Petitioner came to know that his vehicle was implicated in a forest offence by the police on the allegation of escorting a crime lorry indulging in transport of forest produce. 23. In this premise, the Writ Petitioner pleaded that there is no connivance or consort of the Writ Petitioner in the offence. The Writ Petitioner further pleaded that the Forest Officer examined eleven witnesses, but not a single witness has deposed that the Innova vehicle was used for carrying any forest produce, and therefore, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation. While noting the above contentions of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, the Appellate Court has also noted the contents of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Official Respondents stating that Sri Panyam Ashok Kumar and the Writ Petitioner are involved in inter-state smuggling of Red Sandars Wood. The Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal. The operative portion of the Order in the Appeal (C.M.A.No.1 of 2014) is extracted hereunder: “9. As per the details available on record, the vehicle/lorry which was carrying red sander logs and Sandra logs was struck in a mud near Ayyaluru metta within the limits of Nandyal Taluk Police Station and on information, the police went there and found the lorry was being pushed by six persons and one Innova Toyota was behind it. The police by seizing both the vehicles registered a case and handed over the case to the forest officials of Nandyal, which in turn handed over to the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Kurnool. The police by seizing both the vehicles registered a case and handed over the case to the forest officials of Nandyal, which in turn handed over to the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Kurnool. The timing of the seizure of vehicle is also very important in the case. The lorry bearing No.HR 61 B 3517 was sighted by the police in early morning hours 5.00 a.m. on 8.7.2013. Along with the lorry, they also saw Innova behind the lorry bearing No.AP 21 AQ 4979. At that time and at that place, the vehicle taken from the petitioner avowed for the purpose of marriage was found. If really, the vehicle was taken for the purpose of marriage, certainly the Innova vehicle would not have been found at that place. Thus, there is every reason to believe that the vehicle was escorting the lorry bearing No.HR 61B 3517 which was carrying the Red sander and Sandra logs. Thus, any prudent man will suspect that the said Innova vehicle was escorting the lorry even it was carrying no sanders or other forest produce were found in the vehicle. One has to take into consideration that in what circumstances the vehicle was found and when it was seized. If that is taken into consideration, certainly, the ratio laid by the Hon'ble High Court in a judgment reported in 2005 (1) ALT 690 , Adakula Malla Reddy v. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. Mahabubabad, Warangal District and another, has no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, escorting vehicle was a motorbike. Even the owner of the bike wants to carry timber, he cannot carry it. Whereas, Innova vehicle can carry logs if they desire. Thus, taking into consideration the overall aspects of the matter, it is not a fit case for release of the vehicle/Innova. Thus, the petition lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” CONCLUSION: 24. This Court has considered the Order passed by the Authorized Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Kurnool, by Proceedings bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013- 14/FSP dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P.1) and the Order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool in C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014 (Ex.P.4) and also considered the fact that the Innova Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP-21-AQ-4979, which is owned by the Writ Petitioner was admittedly behind the lorry bearing No.HR-61-B-3517 at 5.00 A.M on 08.07.2013. It is clearly stated that the said lorry with prohibited goods has taken a different route in order to avoid the police and that the said lorry got stuck in mud. The passengers of the lorry and the Innova Toyota vehicle were all pushing the lorry in order to bring it out of the mud and it is precisely at this time that the Flying Squad had arrived and apprehended four accused, while one accused had made an escape at that juncture. Having regard to its location and the timing, the Appellate Court had given a prima-facie finding that the Innova Toyota vehicle was used by the offenders while committing the alleged crime. 25. Having considered the Judgments cited by Sri D. Khasim Saheb, learned Government Pleader for Forests and also the reasoning given by the Appellate Court, this Court does not find any reason to take a contrary view with the findings given by the Appellate Court namely the III Additional District Judge Court, Kurnool in C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014. 26. In this view of the matter, this Court holds that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition and further hold that the Order passed by the Authorized Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Kurnool, by Proceedings bearing Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP dated 09.12.2013 (Ex.P.1) which was confirmed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool in C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014, need not be interfered with at this stage. 27. In view of the above observations, the Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed by making the Interim Order dated 11.12.2014 in W.V.M.P.No.2613 of 2014 final. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. In Re : Crimes Against Forest Wealth (Red Sandars Wood and Sandal Wood) – Suo Moto Taken-up Case 29. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the owner of Innova Car bearing No.AP 21 AQ 4979 to release the Car to the Writ Petitioner by suspending the Order in Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP dated 09.12.2013 and consequential Judgment and Decree in CMA No.1/2014 dated 28.07.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. 30. The present Writ Petition has been filed on or about 06.07.2014 and the matter has stood for consideration since then. 30. The present Writ Petition has been filed on or about 06.07.2014 and the matter has stood for consideration since then. By Order dated 07.08.2014, this Court has passed an Interim direction in favour of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.28137 of 2014 by ordering release of Innova Toyota Car bearing No.AP 21 AQ 4979 to the Writ Petitioner forthwith by suspending the Order in Rc.OR.No.108/2013-14/FSP dated 09.12.2013 in the consequential Judgment and Decree in CMA No.1 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014. In W.P.M.P.No.28137 of 2014, this Court, by Order dated 07.08.2014, had directed the release of the Innova Toyota Vehicle. Subsequently, on 11.12.2014, this Court had modified the Interim Order (in W.V.M.P.No.2613 of 2014) directing the Writ Petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a condition for the release of the said vehicle. 31. Subsequently, when this matter came up before the Court for final hearing on 15.02.2023, this Court posed a question to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Forests as regards the status of Crime No.156 of 2013. Since none of the Counsel had any information as regards the status of Crime No.156 of 2013, in which the Innova vehicle was involved, this Court has called for a comprehensive Report from the Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District as regards the status of Crime No.156 of 2013 that was registered on 08.07.2013 on the file of Taluk Police Station, Nandyal. 32. In pursuance of the said direction, this Court had received a Report from the Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District on 16.03.2023 stating that after completion of investigation, FRO, FSP, Kurnool has filed Charge Sheet in this case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal on 07.12.2021. 33. Sri D. Khasim Saheb, learned Government Pleader for Forests submitted that he had filed a Memo dated 28.03.2023. On perusal of this Memo, it indicates that a Charge Sheet has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal in FORM-F (CHARGE SHEET) only on 23.03.2023. Proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer (FAC), Flying Squad Division, Kurnool addressed to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal in Rc.No.108/2013/FSD (K) dated 21.03.2023 would indicate that the reasons for the delay in filing the Charge Sheet is due to the COVID-19 pandemic and also shifting of the Office from one place to another and for want of certain documents in the matter. The reasons given for delay in filing the Charge Sheet are justifiable or not will have to be examined in the context of specific details. But the Report from the Superintendent of Police is vague, as it is bereft of any details in so far as the delay is concerned. Suffice it to observe that Crime is registered on 08.07.2013 while the Pandemic situation prevailed from March, 2020 upto October, 2021. Specific details about shifting of Office and or about the required documents are also not given. 34. Although the Charge Sheet is dated 07.12.2021, it is an admitted fact that the said Charge Sheet has been filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati only on 21.03.2023. Whether it is filed on 07.12.2021 or on 23.03.2023, the fact still remains that the Crime in respect of this case was registered way back on 08.07.2013 and the reasons indicated for this gargantuan delay in filing the Charge Sheet are: i) COVID-19 pandemic; ii) Shifting of Office premises from one place to another and ; iii) For want of certain documents 35. This Court, having noticed this ‘gargantuan delay’ without any justifiable explanation, was also reminded of another case with similar situation of not filing Charge Sheet for nearly about 2 decades, which this Court has dealt with in W.P.No.47096 of 2018. Elementary Facts in W.P.No.47096 of 2018 36. FIR No.27 of 2005 was registered on 19.04.2005 in connection with unauthorised transport of Red Sandars Wood. The Writ Petitioner who is the owner of the lorry, whose name was not mentioned in the FIR, has approached this Court for release of the Bond of Rs.56,000/- on the ground that there is no progress in the case from 19.04.2005. The Crime was registered against the lorry driver and certain other persons who were involved; that, by securing a Bond, the vehicle was released by the Order of this Court dated 08.09.2005. The Bond was secured for an amount of Rs.56,000/-. 37. This Court, by Order dated 02.02.2023 directed the Principal District Judge, Chittoor to secure and convey the information as regards the status of the Case/Crime in FIR No.27/2005. The Bond was secured for an amount of Rs.56,000/-. 37. This Court, by Order dated 02.02.2023 directed the Principal District Judge, Chittoor to secure and convey the information as regards the status of the Case/Crime in FIR No.27/2005. In pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 02.02.2023, the Principal District Judge, Chittoor has submitted a Report bearing Dis.No.974/2023 dated 10.02.2023 stating that a Charge Sheet was never filed and the date indicated by the Forest Officials, which is the alleged date of filing of Charge Sheet, upon due verification, it had came to light that the said date was a public holiday. The Principal District Judge, Chittoor has also stated in his Report that on verification of the Court Record, nothing has been found in the Court Record that there was any development or progress in FIR No.27 of 2005. This Court, taking into consideration that there is no progress in the case for nearly about 2 decades, had directed release of the Bond of Rs.56,000/- by Order dated 01.03.2023. 38. Taking into consideration the facts of the case in W.P.No.47096 of 2018 and the present Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.22434 of 2014, common features are that while the FIRs are registered in both the cases decades ago, there was virtually no development or progress and the Department of Forests has not evinced any interest in completing investigation and filing the Charge Sheet. In W.P.No.47096 of 2018, no Charge Sheet was filed for nearly 2 decades; whereas, on the contrary, the Forest Officials have submitted incorrect information that Charge Sheet was filed. This assertion of the Officials was proved to be wrong in view of the Report submitted by the Principal District Judge, Chittoor that the date the Charge Sheet was stated to have been filed was a public holiday. 39. In the present case also, while the Crime No.156 of 2013 was registered wayback on 08.07.2013, the Officials now say that the Charge Sheet was filed on 07.12.2021 and the same was returned or so for various reasons and the same was again filed on 23.03.2023. The fact still remains that the Charge Sheet was finally, in fact, filed only on 23.03.2023 before another Court, which is only subsequent to the Order passed by this Court on 15.02.2023 calling for the Status Report from the Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District. 40. The fact still remains that the Charge Sheet was finally, in fact, filed only on 23.03.2023 before another Court, which is only subsequent to the Order passed by this Court on 15.02.2023 calling for the Status Report from the Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District. 40. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Forest Officials have apprehended the smugglers dealing with Red Sandars Wood and Sandal Wood by risking their lives. Whereas, after the FIRs/Crimes are registered, there is virtually no progress in the cases for decades. While on one hand this is causing serious loss of revenue to the State; on the other hand, the perpetrators are allowed to freely roam in the society, without being brought to book. This situation is rather an emboldenment and an attractive incentive for such perpetrators to indulge in recidivistic activities without any fear or deterrent. This Court is extremely concerned with the latter consequence. 41. By taking into account these two cases (W.P.Nos.22434 of 2014 & 47096 of 2018), this Court notices a particular pattern and phenomenon where the criminal cases which are registered against the alleged smugglers of Red Sandars Wood, Sandal Wood and other Forest Produce, which is the National Wealth and Natural Resources, are left untouched and unattended for decades. 42. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to initiate a detailed investigation. The investigation shall be initiated by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India by constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT). All the Forest Authorities/Officials in the State of Andhra Pradesh, all the Police Authorities/Officials and all the Principal District Judges of the respective Districts where the Red Sandars Wood, Sandal Wood and other Forest Produce cases arise and are dealt with shall unconditionally cooperate in the proposed inquiry/investigation. The Court is desirous of securing and considering case-data from 1st January, 2001 onwards as regards the number of Crimes/FIRs registered and the ensuing progress in each of such Crimes/FIRs from 1st January, 2001 till date. 43. In order to unravel the truth as regards inefficiency/negligence/connivance, this has to be investigated by an independent External Agency. This is the precise reason as to why this Court has taken this decision to get this matter investigated by the SIT through the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India. 44. 43. In order to unravel the truth as regards inefficiency/negligence/connivance, this has to be investigated by an independent External Agency. This is the precise reason as to why this Court has taken this decision to get this matter investigated by the SIT through the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India. 44. In view of the above discussion, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India is directed to constitute a SIT to investigate into this matter. The SIT shall have the powers of a Civil Court to summon persons, record depositions and to call for the records/documents at its discretion. All the Authorities/Officials from the Department of Forests, Department of Police and the Principal District Judges in the State of Andhra Pradesh shall cooperate with this SIT in the process of investigation. 45. The SIT, constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India, shall submit a Detailed Report before this Court within 12 weeks from today through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Andhra Pradesh shall communicate a Scanned Copy of this Order by e-mail to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India within one (1) week from today. 46. Registry is directed to register this case as : In Re : Crimes Against Forest Wealth (Red Sandars Wood and Sandal Wood) – Suo Moto Taken-up Case. The following Officers shall be arrayed as Respondents : i. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Union of India. ii. Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest, Science and Technology, Government of Andhra Pradesh iii. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh. iv. Divisional Forest Officer, Nellore District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. v. Divisional Forest Officer, Prakasam District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. vi. Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupati District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. vii. Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. viii. Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. ix. Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. x. Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xi. Superintendent of Police, Nellore District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xii. Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xiii. Superintendent of Police, Tirupati District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xiv. Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. ix. Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. x. Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xi. Superintendent of Police, Nellore District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xii. Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xiii. Superintendent of Police, Tirupati District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xiv. Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xv. Superintendent of Police, Nandyal District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xvi. Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. xvii. Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 47. List this In Re : Crimes Against Forest Wealth (Red Sandars Wood and Sandal Wood) – Suo Moto Taken-up Case on 06.09.2023 after obtaining directions from the Hon’ble Chief Justice.