JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Petitioner Arjun Sahu has been convicted u/s 332 and sentenced to R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The Petitioner Bhagirathi Behera has been convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/. in default to further R.I. for 15 days. 2. P.W. 1 Purnachandra Sahu is a forest guard at Jamdehi. On 16-2-1963 Srinath Gan (p.w. 5) another forest guard informed P.W. 1 that some trees had been cut and removed from block No. 2 in Rakghi reserve forest and requested him to assist him in seizing and hammering the stumps. P.W. 1 accordingly accompanied P.W. 5 and put hammer marks on about 14 stumps by manner No. 86. On the way, P.W. 1 noticed near the Jamdehi bridge that 16 logs of wood of the species of Asan, Mahul, Dha and Char each about 2 in girth lying near the said bridge. He then reported this matter to the forester Chhabil Kumar Sahu, P.W. 3 on 18-2-1963. Thereafter P.W. 3 accompanied by P.W. 1 and some others went near the bridge which was being constructed by a contractor, Uchhab Pradhan. Not finding Uchhab at the spot, the forest staff enquired of his manager Subhas Chandra Das if they had got the permit for felling the trees lying at the spot. Having received the answer in negative, P.W. 1 under the direction of P.W. 3 put hammer marks on about 118 logs of the above-stated species that were lying there. The labourers who accompanied the forest officials were asked to shift the logs to some other place so that they may\be kept in the custody of some person. But as accused Bhagirathi shouted with a threatening attitude, the party left the place out of fear. At about 2 p. m. on the same day P.W. 3 and some others went near the bridge when P.W. 1 directed one of the labourers, P.W. 7 to remove the logs when P.W. 7 was trying to remove one of the logs, accused Bhagirathi assaulted him with first blows and when P.W. 1 was assisting P.W. 4 to carry another log, he was given a push as a result of which he fell down and got an injury on his hand. Thereafter information was lodged at the police station and on the requisition of the police P.W. 1 was medically examined by the doctor, P.W. 6. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioners who were tried, convicted and sentenced as above and on appeal the conviction and sentence having been upheld by the Sessions Judge, the Petitioners have come up with this revision. 3. The facts that P.W. 1 is a forest guard and the logs were found near the Jamdehi bridge are not disputed. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that on 18-2-1963 while passing by the bridge he found 118 ballis each about of 2 girth and of which 82 pieces were being used in construction work and the rest 36 pieces were lying near the bridge and on demand the manager fir the contractor could not produce any permit before him. So he returned to his quarters, called P.W. 1 and some others and went to the spot where hammer marks were put on 36 ballis which were seized in the presence of witnesses, under seizure list, Ext. 1. M.O.I is the seized hammer mark No. 86. Thereafter he ordered the labourers to carry the seized ballis, but that could not be done on account of the threatening attitude of Petitioner Bhagirathi Behera. At about 2 p. m. he again went to the spot and directed the labourers to remove the seized Ballis when accused Arjun Sahu pushed the forest guard, P.W. 1 and Petitioner Bhagirathi gave a push to Bahadur Mundari P.W. 7. On seeing this, P.W. 3 returned to his office and submitted a report, Ext. 2 to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. Both P.W. 3 and 1 were in their official uniform on the spot at the time of occurrence. P.W. 5 is the other forest guard who found several trees in the Rakshi reserve forest to have been cut and removed from Block No. 2. He went with P.W. 1 with hammer No. 86, M.0.I and marked with it 140 stumps with the same. Thereafter he submitted a report, Ext. to the forester, Prafulla Kumar Nath. 4. That a number of Ballis were seized is not denied by the accused persons. He went with P.W. 1 with hammer No. 86, M.0.I and marked with it 140 stumps with the same. Thereafter he submitted a report, Ext. to the forester, Prafulla Kumar Nath. 4. That a number of Ballis were seized is not denied by the accused persons. Their contention is that both of them are the servants of the contractor who was in charge of the construction of the bridge and that the logs in question had been used in the construction of the bridge. When P.W. 1 and his men wanted to remove the logs, they (Petitioners) requested them to approach the contractor, but instead of doing so they insisted on removal of the logs without the consent of the contractor and that the allegations of assault either on P.W. 1 or P.W. 7 were false. Thus, the defence partly accepted the prosecution story that P.W. 1 and his party seized the logs and attempted to remove the same. The only difference in their contentions being that while the prosecution case was that both p.ws. 1 and 7 were assaulted, the case of the defence was that they requested the forest officials to approach the contractor and not to remove the logs. 5. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contended that in view of the evidence of the injured persons, P.W. 1 and 7 and that of the doctor the learned appellate court was not correct in convicting the Petitioners for having caused burnt to p.ws. 1 and 7. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that he was given a push on his neck as a result of which he fell down and received some injuries. The doctor, P.W. 6 who examined P.W. 1 did not notice any injury on the neck, but he found only two minor abrasions one on the left arm and the other on the back of the left elbow which are the results of a fall. In view of the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was given only a push and did not receive any blow in that hands of the accused Arjun, it was contended that no case of hurt u/s 332 has been made out against the Petitioner Arjun Sahu. Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'hurt' to mean an act which causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'hurt' to mean an act which causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. No doubt, a push on the neck is likely to cause some bodily pain within the meaning of Section 319 though in some cases it may be so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it as contemplated u/s 95 of the Code. But it cannot be doubted that such a push also comes within the meaning of Section 319. Section 332 penalises any act of but caused to a public servant in the discharge of his duties as which public servant or with intent to prevent or deter that public servant from discharging his duty. Assuming it is not a case of hurt, but it is only a case of assault, then the action of the Petitioner No. 1 would in any case be punishable u/s 353 and it makes little difference for the purpose of this case. It is not disputed that P.W. 1 the forest guard is a public servant. It is in evidence that he was in his official uniform and was entrusted with the duty of making seizure of goods illegally removed from the forest. In the present case the evidence of P.W. 3 the forester sufficiently discloses that it was under his direction that the logs were seized and P.W. 1 was kept in charge of removing the same with the assistance of some labourers. The contention put forward on behalf of the Petitioners was that no forest offence has been reported to a Magistrate and nothing has been shown that such collection of Ballis at that place amounts to a violation of the forest rules. It was urged that being the position, it was open to the accused persons in exercise of their right of private defence of property to use such force as was necessary to prevent such Ballis from being removed and no more force was used than was necessary 4 for the purpose, even if the prosecution story is accepted as a whole. This contention, however, is wholly unfounded. This contention, however, is wholly unfounded. No doubt Section 52(2) of the Indian Forest Act provides that every officer seizing any property under this section shall as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made and in fact no such report has been made to a Magistrate and no explanation is forthcoming why no such case was started. That however is not relevant for the purpose of this case. Section 2(4) of the Forest Act defines 'forest produce' to include timber, 'Charcoal', etc. and Sub-section (6) of the section defines 'timber' to mean trees when they have fallen or have been felled and all wood whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not. 6. It is the evidence of P.W. 5 that some trees were removed from the reserve forest. P.W. 3 the forester suspected these timbers to belong to Government. Rule 4 of the Orissa. Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules deals with transit permits and it says that all forest produce in transit by road, rail or water shall be covered by a permit called the 'transit permit' and under Clause (b) of the said rule a transit permit would be required for removal of the timbers of species like Asan, Sal, etc. as in this case. Under these rules 'timber' has been defined to include all timbers brought from privately owned land and all other classes of timbers as defined in the Indian Forest Act. It cannot be disputed that P.W. 3 the forester made some seizures of Ballis of Asan and some other species which come under the definition of timber. Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules requires that a transit permit shall be produced for inspection if so required by an officer not below the rank of a forester. Rule 11 provides for penalties for contravening the provisions of these rules. The defence has not produced any transit permit nor have they offered any satisfactory explanation for possession of the timbers in question. In any case P.W. 1 was working in good faith under the colour of his office. Rule 11 provides for penalties for contravening the provisions of these rules. The defence has not produced any transit permit nor have they offered any satisfactory explanation for possession of the timbers in question. In any case P.W. 1 was working in good faith under the colour of his office. u/s 9 of the Indian Penal Code no right of private defence is available as against the act of a public servant who does anything in good faith under the colour of his office if such act does not cause apprehension of death or grievous injury. It has been clearly established on the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was discharging his duty as a forest guard and was acting in good faith. There is nothing to show that he did any act which reasonably caused the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt to either of the Petitioners. Thus neither the right of private defence of person or property was available to the Petitioners since such right is always subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sidheswar Panda Vs. The State. That was a case which is clearly distinguishable from the case in point. There the prosecution was under the Hindole Forest Rules and the conviction of the Petitioners was set aside mainly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish that the timbers in possession of the accused belonged to Government forest. Reliance was also placed on a decision in Vishun Prasad Bhadani Vs. Union of India (UOI). In that case the police officials attached some cattle on the basis of some illegal distress warrant and the accused persons resisted the attachment and rescued the cattle. On the facts of that case it was held that the attachment was illegal and without jurisdiction and the accused had a right of private defence u/s 97, Indian Penal Code. Here, however, no such question of jurisdiction arises. As already stated in this case P.W. 1 as a forest guard acted in good faith under the direction of P.W. 3 when he was assaulted. Therefore the Petitioner Arjun Sahu cannot escape the liability u/s 332, Indian Penal Code. 8. Here, however, no such question of jurisdiction arises. As already stated in this case P.W. 1 as a forest guard acted in good faith under the direction of P.W. 3 when he was assaulted. Therefore the Petitioner Arjun Sahu cannot escape the liability u/s 332, Indian Penal Code. 8. With respect to accused Bhagirathi, the case against him is that he caused hurt to P.W. 7, as a result of which the latter sustained some injuries. It was the case of P.W. 7 that he received some bleeding injuries. It appears from the evidence of the A. Section I. that he did not send P.W. 7 for medical examination, nor does the evidence of the doctor show that at any time he examined this witness. Thus the story of p: w. 7 that he received bleeding injuries stands unsupported. P.W. 7 was a labourer engaged in the removal of the logs and it is not improbable that in course of the removal of the logs there was some protest by the Petitioners and P.W. 7 might have got a push in course of the some scuffle. It was the case of this witness that he was given a push by the side of his ribs. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that Bhagirathi assaulted P.W. 7 with fist blows at his right shoulder. In view of this unsatisfactory evidence so far as this Petitioner is concerned, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted. 9. In the result the order of conviction so far as the Petitioner Arjun Sahu is concerned is maintained, but in view of the fact that the occurrence took place about two and a half years ago, I would reduce his sentence to the period already undergone and maintain the sentence of fine and its default sentence.