IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24727 of 2008 DINESH THAKUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance 13.10.2003, whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act. The case was instituted on the basis of inspection of the saw mill of the petitioner when some Sisham and Shemal woods were seized as the stock register were not properly maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was running saw mill till 1994 but after that maliciously licence was not renewed. It is not alleged that seized woods were illegally kept there. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court finds that seizure has not been made as per the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Indian Forest Act. The order of cognizance suggests that cognizance has been taken under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act. Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act envisages the power to make rule to regulate transit of the Forest produce and it is not a penal provision. 2 Prima facie it appears that cognizance has been taken by very cryptic order mechanically with complete non application of mind. On that ground alone, the order of cognizance dated 13.10.2003, passed in Complaint Case No. C.C. 351 of 2002, Trial No. 3289 of 2007, with regard to petitioner only, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, application stands allowed. Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)