Short Note : 1. The appellant in these appeals, viz., Ayodhya Prasad, Satna, Lalloo and Awadhesh, have been convicted under section 326 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The appellant Ayodhya Prasad is a Forest Guard. He received information that some persons had gone in a forest near village Sal for illicit felling. He collected some villagers, including the appellants Satna, Lalloo and Awadhesh, for apprehending the thieves. Betai alias Ramlal was one of the persons who had gone for illicit felling. He had cut some bamboos and was returning with his axe and the cut bamboos. When he reached near the place where the appellants were waiting, he was asked by Ayodhya Prasad to give bamboos and the axe, Betai refused to give his axe, on which Ayodhya Prasad and other appellants grappled with him. In that grappling one mjury was caused to Betai on right thigh in femoral triangle. The femoral blood vessels and the nerve were cut and Betai died due to haemorrhage and shock. 3. The learned trial Judge had found that the common intention of Ayodhya Prasad and the other appellants in grappling with Betai was to seize the axe which he had refused to surrender. The trial Judge had also found that it is not clear as to who caused the injury. The learned Judge, however, from his finding that the common intention was to use force, came to the conclusion that all the appellants were liable under section 326. 4. Held: In my opinion on the findings reached by the trial Judge, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 5. Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927, authorises seizure of property by any Forest Officer when he has reason to believe that forest offence has been committed. It is pertinent to note that the authority under this section is not merely to seize the forest produce with reference to which the offence is committed, but also all tools, boats, carts or cattle which were used in Committing the offence. A Forest Officer has also power to arrest without warrant 'any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been 'concerned in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month, this is provided in section 64 of the Act, 6. A Forest Officer has also power to arrest without warrant 'any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been 'concerned in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month, this is provided in section 64 of the Act, 6. On the story found by the trial Judge, Betai was involved in a forest offence and the axe which he was carrying was presumably the axe which was used for commission of the offence, The axe was, therefore, liable for seizure under section 52. The appellant Ayodhya Prasad who, as already stated, is a Forest Guard was entitled to seize the axe from Betai in exercise of his power under section 52. He took the help of the other appellants for that purpose, It cannot, therefore, be said that there was any common intention to commit any offence when the appellants grappled with Betai for the purpose of seizure of the axe, In any case, there is absolutely no basis for holding that there was any common intention for committing the offence for which the appellants have been convicted. If at all, the injury found on Betai was caused by anyone of the appellants but that was an individual act and, since it is not known as to who caused the injury, none of the appellants can be convicted. Appeal allowed.