IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1727 of 2002 ARUN KUMAR, S/o Sri Devendra Prasad Yadav, Resident of village Shankarpur, P.S. Muffasil, District Munger … Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna-1 2.Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.Divisional Forest Officer, Jamui (Forest Plantation Division, Jamui) 4.Beat Officer, Madhopur Forest Plantation Range, Jamui … Respondents ----------- 4. 10.4.2009 Heard Mr. R.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. This Court would find that the revisional authority in the impugned order dated 14.9.2001 under the Forest Act has considered each and every aspect while setting aside the order dated 1.6.1996, of the Collector of the District in appeal. Mr. Shukla in fact would only contend that the impugned order passed by the revisional authority is not sustainable because there was no certificate of Mukhiya at the time of seizure. Mr. Shukla, however, fairly submits that he could not lay his hand on such requirement of there being necessity of certificate of a Mukhiya. As a matter of fact even this aspect has been 2 considered by the revisional authority who too has come to the same finding. At least law does not require the certificate of Mukhiya. Once the finding of fact with regard to seizure of forest produce from Madhopur is established, and its interception by the employee of the Forest Department is also accepted, the over emphasis of the counsel for the petitioner that the expression “Forest Officer” would not cover a “Forester” has to be also rejected because the expression Officer having been not defined under the Act, it will have to be given an ordinary meaning in common parlance and will include any person one who is performing the duties of an office. The expression Forest Officer having been not defined in fact will have to be given the ordinary meaning in the context it has been used in section 52 of the Act. Judged in this background, this Court would find that even a Forester on duty being a holder of an office, is an Officer in terms of section 52 of the Act and consequently is entitled to seize the illegal forest produce 3 being taken away by any person in unauthorized manner. This Court, therefore, would approve even the last part of the impugned order wherein the revisional authority has rightly analyzed that it would be wholly unsafe to interpret the provisions of section 52 to mean that whenever a Forester or any other employee lesser in rank to a designated Forest Officer of the Forest Department would notice the offence being committed under the Forest Act he will have no recourse but to first go to such officer and await for the seizure of the goods instead of taking an immediate action. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with an observation that the fate of the truck in question will be decided strictly in accordance with law. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/