M. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceeding of C. R. Case No. 116a of 1985 (Forest Case No. 44 of 1985) of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar, which initiated against the petitioner and two others on a complaint filed by the Forest Officer of Madarihat Range. The allegations as made in complaint are as under. ( 2 ) ON receipt of information regarding commission of acts punishable under law and storage of illegally procured forest produce the complainant searched the premises of M/s. V. S. Industries belonging to the petitioner and located in village Uttar Khairbari under police station Madarihat on January 29 and 30, 1985. In course of such search, he seized a large quantity of catechu (khair) timbers and paste. According to complainant, most of the seized goods were kept concealed in a closed hut inside the said premises. On demand, the other two accused who were found inside the said premises and running to the factory as managers/agents failed to show any document to prove legal possession of goods. On the contrary, they voluntarily admitted that all the seized timber had been collected illegally from the nearby forests of Jaldapara Sanctuary. According to the complainant, the seized articles were illegally stored and concealed in the said premises violating rule 7 (3) of the West Bengal Forest-Produce Transit Rules, 1959 ('rules' for short) and as such the accused persons were liable for punishment under rule 11 of the said Rules. The complainant avers that after seizure of the above forest produce, a notice was served upon the petitioner in accordance with rule 8 (i) (a) of the said Rules but no reply was received from him till filing of the complaint. ( 3 ) ANOTHER allegation that has been made in the complaint is that the factory in question has been established within a distance of two kilometres from the reserved forests of Jaldapara Sanctuary in violation of rule 3 (i) of the West Bengal Forest (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills and other Wood-based Industries) Rules, 1982. ( 4 ) MR. ( 4 ) MR. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner first submitted that a Forest Officer derived his power to seize any forest produce for alleged commission of a forest offence from section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ('act' for short) but as in the instant case, the complainant did not exercise his powers thereunder but purported to act under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('code' for short ). The seizure and filing of the complaint pursuant thereto were both illegal. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Ghosh. The seizure list only indicates that it was prepared in a form prescribed for seizure under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that does not mean that the Forest Officer was exercising his powers under section 102 of the Code. In the complaint, it has been clearly stated that the seizure in the instant case was made under section 52 (1) of the Act and merely because the concerned Officer has used a form prescribed for seizure under section 102 of the Code, it would not amount to a seizure thereunder. ( 5 ) MR. Ghosh next submitted that as the goods in question were seized while in stores and not in transit, the Rules could not have any manner of application in the facts of the instant case. As a corollary thereto, Mr. Ghosh argued, there could not be any violation of rule 7 (3) of the Rules so as to make the petitioner liable for punishment under rule 11 (1) thereof. ( 6 ) ON a careful perusal of the contents of the complaint in the light of the relevant Rules, I do not find any substance in this contention of Mr. Ghosh also. It is undoubtedly true that the Rules have been framed to regulate and control the transit of timber and other forest produce and rule 3 provides that the Rules shall apply to timber and other forest produce from any source within the districts mentioned therein which are moved by any of the routes within the boundaries of those districts. Rule 4 (1) expressly provides that within the limits of areas specified in rule 3, no person shall conceal any timber. Rule 4 (1) expressly provides that within the limits of areas specified in rule 3, no person shall conceal any timber. Rule 3 and 4 (1) when read together, clearly envisage that within the limits of the districts mentioned in the former no person shall conceal any timber. It has been specifically alleged in the complaint that most of the timbers were kept concealed in a hut within the premises of the petitioner. In view of the above allegation and as the district of Jalpaiguri, within which the premises in question is situate, is one of the districts mentioned in Rule 3, a prosecution against the accused under Rule 11 for violation of rule 4 (1) is maintainable. ( 7 ) ANOTHER allegation in the complaint relates to violation of rule 7 (3) of the Rules. The said Rule provides, inter alia, that any goods or other forest produce not covered by a transit pass referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 4 or concealed in contravention of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 shall be liable to be seizure and dealt with further under the provisions of Chapter IX of the Act. It is evident therefore that rule 7 does not create any offence; and to that extent the averment made in the complaint that the seized goods were concealed and stored violating rule 7 (3) is not strictly correct. But then, in the instant case, apart from the commission of an offence for violation of rule 4 (1) by the accused, the commission of an offence for violation of rule 4 (2) by them has been disclosed by the confessional statements referred to in the complaint. ( 8 ) IT must therefore be held that the petitioner is liable for prosecution under rule 11 and that the goods have been rightly seized under rule 7 (3) read with section 52 of the Act which falls under Chapter IX thereof. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, I reject this application. Application rejected.