Order.-The ultimate charge as framed by the Additional Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Mercara, on 26th June, 1973 against four persons as the accused, is as below: “That you all the accused, with common intention, on 20th day of March 1971 at about 3-30 p.m. at Ariyur village have cut down a sandal wood tree in Survey No. 1/22, a paisari land, valued at Rs. 2,100 without any authority, and thus thereby committed an offence punishable under section 86 of the Mysore Forest Act read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. That you all the accused, with common intention, on the said date, time and place committed theft of a sandal wood tree from Survey No. 1/22 a paisari land of village Ariyur by severing the said tree i.e., by taking it out of the possession of the State Government, intending to take the said tree dishonestly without the consent of State Government, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 379, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” 2. Before the learned Magistrate, evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced. All the four accused were convicted as charged. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The properties produced were confiscated to the Government. 3. The four accused went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Coorg, Mercara, in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1973. The appeal was dismissed. The four accused have now come up in the present revision to this Court. 4. This petition need not detain us long. It can be decided on a single clinching point. Clause (3) of section 62 of the Mysore Forest Act, 1963, reads as below: “Every Officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or receptacle or vehicle (if any) in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been so seized........” The expression ‘shall’ is mandatory, and a failure to follow it is fatal as observed in two judgments of this Court in Christian Thomas and another v. State of Mysore1 and Abdul Rahiman and another v. State of Mysore1. The facts of those two cases are almost on all fours with the facts of the instant case. 5. The facts of those two cases are almost on all fours with the facts of the instant case. 5. The Forester P.W.3, Kushalappa, does not say that he put any mark on the seized sandalwood billets indicating that the same have been so seized. The mahazar Exhibit P-1 is also absolutely silent on this aspect. In view of the above situation, Sri K. S. Gowrishankar, learned Advocate of the petitioners, did not choose to stress any of the other minor contentions, and very justifiably. 6. This Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are both set aside.