JUDGMENT - Sirpurkar V.S., J.:—Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The present application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent Nathusingh Bhagwantsingh Chandel. The said appeal was directed against the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest and by the impugned order the said authority has cancelled the saw mill licence of the appellant for having breached the condition No. 5(c) of the licence to run the saw mill. Strangely enough, the appellant filed an appeal against this order relying on section 61D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 3. Section 61-D provides an appeal only against the orders passed under section 61A or section 61-C of the Indian Forest Act. Section 61-A pertains to the orders of confiscation by the forest officers of the forest produce where the forest offence is believed to have been committed. It provides that where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, sandalwood, firewood or any other notified forest produce which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 shall without any unreasonable delay produce it together with all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing of such offence before an officer authorised by the State Government. Sub-section (2) of section 61A pertains to the power of the State Government to authorise any one or more officers for the local area, while sub-section (3) provides that where the authorised officer is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property, he may order the confiscation of the property so seized together with all tools, boats, vehicles and cattle. Sub-section (4) entails upon such authorised officer to sell such property by public auction where he is convinced of the public interest involved in the same. Section 61-B provides for issue of show cause notice and thus providing an opportunity to a person to show cause against such proposed confiscation. Section 61-C only provides a revision against the order passed under section 61-A. 4. Section 61-B provides for issue of show cause notice and thus providing an opportunity to a person to show cause against such proposed confiscation. Section 61-C only provides a revision against the order passed under section 61-A. 4. It will, therefore, be clear that section 61-D provides an appeal before the Sessions Judge only in case of the orders passed under section 61A for confiscation or otherwise as also the revisional orders against the orders passed under section 61-A. The present order admittedly does not come under the provisions of section 61-A or 61-C as the case may be. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, has committed, a jurisdictional error in entertaining an appeal under the provisions of section 61-D and further allowing the same. It is not for me to go into the merits of the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest or the Additional Sessions Judge who wrongly acted as an appellate authority under section 61-D of the Act. The order is clearly without jurisdiction and has to be set aside and is so set aside. 5. Shri P.V. Hardas, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant, in the case, however, requested that he should be given an opportunity to take such steps as he is entitled to in law. Taking of such steps would not need the leave of this Court since the order impugned in this matter is being set aside on the sole question of jurisdiction. With these observations, the Criminal Application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application stands finally disposed of. Application allowed. -----