PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the challenge is to the legality of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1987 on 3-7-1987. The order dated 8-12-1986 passed by the Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division, Khurda whereby he had directed for confiscation of a jeep bearing registration No. OSP 19 along with accessories and timber, which were being transported in the jeep, was assailed in appeal. ( 2 ) MR. P. K. Misra, learned counsel foe petitioner, submits that in view of the provisions of S. 56 (2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. For the sake of convenience, S. 56 (2-a) is quoted below. "56. Seizure of property liable to confiscation.- (1) to (2) xx xx xx xx xx xx x (2-a) where an authorised Officer seizes any forest produce under Sub-Sec. (1) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub-Sec. (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, rocks, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence. " according to Mr. Misra, the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area was to decide the appeal and Sessions Judge was not authorised to deal with the same. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court reported in (1987) 64 Cut LT 233 : Narahari Behera v. State of Orissa. A Division Bench of this Court referred to the aforesaid provision and concluded that a District Judge and Sessions Judge might be the same person, yet a distinction has to be made between functions authorised under the Criminal Procedure Code so far as they are concerned. In view of the language of Sub-Sec. (2-e) of S. 56 of the Act, the District Judge alone was comptent to deal with the appeal. It was held that there was a remote possibility of prejudice to the appellant and disposal was by a Judge who had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. In view of the language of Sub-Sec. (2-e) of S. 56 of the Act, the District Judge alone was comptent to deal with the appeal. It was held that there was a remote possibility of prejudice to the appellant and disposal was by a Judge who had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. ( 3 ) KEEPING in view of the observation made above, we set aside the appellate order as contained in Annexure-3 and direct that the appeal be heard and disposed of by the District Judge, Puri. The writ application is disposed of send back the records immediately. S. K. MOHANTY, J. :- 4. I agree. Petition allowed.