S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) - On the complainant made by the officer concerned of the forest department, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banda took cognizance of offences under Rules 3 and 27 read with Rule 29 of the: M. P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961 (made under Section 41, 42 and 76 of the Forest Act) and Section 5 read with Section 16 of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 against the accused-applicant. After receiving the summons for his attendance, the accused applicant made an application to the Judicial Magistrate that the forest authority concerned be directed to remove its seal from the saw mill which had been seized at the time of inspection of the accused applicants premises and handed over on Supurdnama to him. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 11-1-1982 passed in Criminal Case No. 704 of 1981 rejected the application. On the accused-applicant having filed a revision against the said order, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide his order dated 29-3-1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1982 dismissed the same. It is why the accused-applicant has filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) A similar matter had come up for consideration before this Court in Gurubaksh Singh v. The State of M. P. and two others1, and this Court for the reasons stated by it in its order dated 30-6- 1982 allowed the application and directed the complainant-State to remove its lock and seal from the saw mill of the accused-applicant of that case. However, as the learned counsel for the State- non-applicant has urged an additional ground in the present case, this Court thinks it proper to deal with it. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the State-non-applicant, the act of putting seal on the saw mill amounted to exercise of dominion over the same by the forest authority concerned and that the same was covered by the power to seize property vested in the said officer under the relevant provisions of the Forest Act and the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam. ( 4 ) UNDER the provisions of M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, it is section 15 that confers power of seizure etc. on the person authorized. ( 4 ) UNDER the provisions of M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, it is section 15 that confers power of seizure etc. on the person authorized. However, clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of tile said section makes it clear that it is only the specified forest produce in respect of which any contravention of the said Act or the Rules made there-under is suspected that can he seized along with receptacle containing such produce or the vehicles or boards used in carrying such produce. There is no power vested under the said section in the person authorized to either seize any saw mill or to seal the same. ( 5 ) AS far as the Forest Act is concerned, it is section 52 of the said Act that confers property liable to confiscation on the officer concerned. The relevant portion of the said section states that when there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing such offence, may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the State-non-applicant that as the contravention of Rule 27 read with Rule 29 of the M. P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules was an offence committed by the accused-applicant in respect of a forest produce, and the saw mill was used by the accused applicant in committing the said offence, the officer concerned had power to seize the saw mill of the accused-applicant and to seal the same in exercise of the said power. In the said connection, it is contended by the learned counsel that the saw mill is covered by the term tools occurring in Section 52 of the Act. ( 6 ) NOW, the learned counsel for the State-non-applicant does not dispute the position that the saw mill of the accused-applicant was a machinery. As a matter of fact, the very contravention of Rule 27 of the M. P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules said to have been committed by the accused- applicant suggests that according to the prosecution the saw mill was either a machinery or other plant within the meaning of the said order. As a matter of fact, the very contravention of Rule 27 of the M. P. Transit (Forest Produce) Rules said to have been committed by the accused- applicant suggests that according to the prosecution the saw mill was either a machinery or other plant within the meaning of the said order. The relevant portion of the said Rule states that within the limits of any reserved, protected or unclassed forests in charge of the forest department and within eighty kilometers of such limits no person shall erect any machinery or other plant for cutting, converting and fashioning of timber without the previous sanction in writing of a forest officer not lower in rank than a Divisional Forest Officer, who may while granting such permission, impose suitable conditions for safeguarding Government interest. The question, therefore, that next arises for consideration is whether the saw mill of the accused-applicant which was a machinery within the meaning of Rule 27 of the Transit Rules could - also- be said to be covered by the term tools as used in section 52 of the Forest Act so as to empower the officer concerned to seize the same under the said section. ( 7 ) THIS Court finds it unable to agree with the learned counsel for the State-non-applicant that in the context in which the term tools has been used in section 52 of the Forest Act, it would include the saw mill which was essentially a machinery. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Mir Mohammad A1i2, their Lordships were pleased to observe, relying on decision of the Privy Council in The Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman of the Cossipore and Chitopore Municipality3 that the word machinery when used in ordinary language prima facie; means some mechanical contrivances which by themselves or in combination with one or more other mechanical contrivances, by the movement and inter-dependent operation of their respective parts generate power, or evoke, modify apply or direct natural forces with the object in each case of effecting so definite and specific a result. Their Lordships were also pleased to observe that prima facie the ordinary meaning of the word machinery and the word machinery is an ordinary and not a technical word-must, unless there is something in the context, prevail in the case of special Acts like. Indian Income-tax Act also. Their Lordships were also pleased to observe that prima facie the ordinary meaning of the word machinery and the word machinery is an ordinary and not a technical word-must, unless there is something in the context, prevail in the case of special Acts like. Indian Income-tax Act also. Their Lordships were further pleased to accept the view expressed by the Privy Council that the word machinery must mean more than a collection of ordinary tools. For the said reason also this Court ands it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State non-applicant that the term tools used in section 52 of the Forest Act should be interpreted so as to include a saw mill also. ( 8 ) THUS, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the State non-applicant based on decision of the Calcutta High Court in Collector of Customs and Cultural Excise v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. 4, to the effect that the act of putting seal on the saw mill amounted to exercise of dominion over the same by the forest authority concerned and that the same was covered by the power to seize property is accepted, it is to be held that as no such power to seize a saw mill was vested in the said authority either under the provisions of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam or the Forest Act, the act in question was unauthorized and without jurisdiction. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the application is allowed. The order dated 11-1-1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate as also that dated 29-3-1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. The complainant State is directed to remove its seal from the saw mill of the accused-applicant. Application allowed. .