J. C, MISHRA, J. This revision has been filed against seizure of saw machine, its part and woods stored at saw mill on 18- 3-1997 and also to set aside the order dated 26-4-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, III, Allahabad rejecting the applicants prayer for release of the seized articles. 2. A copy of the seizure memo (annexure-4) shows that on 18th March, 1997 at 3. 20 p. m. the S. D. M. Phulpur, CO. Phulpur. D. F. O. and Range Officer raided the saw mill of the revisionist and in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court closed the saw mill, seized timbers and woods kept at the platform alongwith separable parts of saw machine. 3. The revisionist filed an application for release before Judicial Magistrate II, Allahabad. After hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and A. P. O. rejected the applicatin on 26-3-1997. Felt aggrieved the revisionist filed an applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , read with Section 397, Cr. P. C. . On 21-8- 1997 the Bench concerned held that since the order is revisable its inherent powers should not be invoked and therefore, directed the application to be treated as revision and permitted the applicant to make necessary amendments. 4. I have heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that no licence is required for running the saw mill in view of the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 and the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and othei Forest Produce Rules, 1978, as these rules are not applicable to the ordinary operation of the domestic carpentry or to other similar work on small scale. 5. The learned Counsel contended that the revisonist has already been permitted to make wooden furniture and permanent registration certificate in this regard was issued by the Industries Department, which indicates that the saw mill was be ing used as domestic carpentry or for similar work on small scale and therefore no licence for operating the saw mill was required. 5. The learned Counsel contended that the revisonist has already been permitted to make wooden furniture and permanent registration certificate in this regard was issued by the Industries Department, which indicates that the saw mill was be ing used as domestic carpentry or for similar work on small scale and therefore no licence for operating the saw mill was required. He referred to the certificate is sued by the District Industries Centre dated 19-6-1971 which indicates that the applicant was permitted to make wooden furniture for establishing industry on small scale in the name and style of Rakesh and Ravi Wooden Furniture and House Windows in village Sahado, Phulpur, Allahabad. 6. The learned Counsel for the revi sonist also pointed out that earlier in the year 1994 the saw mill of the revisionist had been closed and his application for release was rejected by the Judicial Magis trate ill, Allahabad. The order was chal lenged by him in Criminal Revision No. 721 of 1994 which was decided by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alla habad directed the Magistrate to re consider the applicatin in accordance with the observations made by him. After re mand the learned Magistrate released the saw machine subject to his furnishing per sonal bond of Rs. 25,000;- with two sure ties each in the like amount. 7. So far as the Uttar Pradesh Estalbishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 is concerned it is not applicable to ordinary operations of do mestic carpentry or to similar work on small scale in view of saving contained in Rule 12. Similarly, the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Pro duce Rules, 1978 regarding prohibited conversoin of the timber is not applicable to ordinary operation of domestic carpen try or to other similar work on small scale in view of explanation to Rule-26. 8. In view of the aforesaid provision referred to and relied on by the learned Counsel for the revisonist there is no doubt that the provisoins of Uttar Pradesh Estalbishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 are not applicable to ordinary operation of domestic carpentry or to other similar work on small scale and consequently no licence is required till saw mill is used for that purpose. 9. 9. A perusal of the recovery memos would show that the saw mills were closed in compliance of the directions of the Su preme Court. The learned Counsel for the revisionsit contended that the Supreme Court has not prohibited running of li cenced saw mills but only the operation of unlicenced saw mills and since the revi sonist was. granted registration certificate for making wooden furniture, the saw mill was being operated for domestic carpentry and as such no licence was required. 9. In order to appreciate the argu ments of the learned Counsel for the revi sionist it would be pertinent to look into the interim directions given by the Su preme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thiru-mulkpad v. Union of India and others, JT 1997 (3) SC 338. 10. The Supreme Court in view of the great significance of the matters involved relating to the protection and conservation of the forest throughout the country and also various aspects relating to National Forest Policy passed some interim orders. In clarifying the meaning of the word "forest" used in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 which was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimatley results in ecological imbalance the Supreme Court observed that word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning and must apply to all forests irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whetehr designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2 (i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area re corded a forest in The Government record irrespective of the ownerhsip. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisoins en acted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. 13. After "explaining the meaning of the word "forest" in the aforesaid Act the Supreme Court observed that it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". 13. After "explaining the meaning of the word "forest" in the aforesaid Act the Supreme Court observed that it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Sectoin 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind deluding veneer or plywood mills and mining of any mineral are non-forest pur poses and are. There fore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Gov ernment. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisoins of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith. 12. The Supreme Court prohibited the felling of trees in all forests except in ac cordance with the working plans of the State governments as approved by the Central Government and further directed the State Governments to constitute within one month an Expert Committee to: (i) identify areas which are "forests", irre spective of whether they are so notified, rec ognised or classified under any law and irre spective of the ownership of the land of such forest; (ii) identify the areas wliich were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared. The State Governments were further di rected to submit within 2 months a report re garding the number of saw mills, veneer and ply wood mills actually operating within the State, with particulars of their real ownerhsip; the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing, their proximity to the nearest forest and their source of timber. 13. The Supreme Court further di rected to constitute within one month an Expert Committee to assess the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua saw mills and timber-based industry and the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State and the optimum distnace from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be lo cated. 14. After the aforesaid interim orders which were passed on December 12, 1996 the Supreme Court by order dated 4-3-1997 in the aforesaid case in JT 1997 (3) SC 338, again gave some directions. 14. After the aforesaid interim orders which were passed on December 12, 1996 the Supreme Court by order dated 4-3-1997 in the aforesaid case in JT 1997 (3) SC 338, again gave some directions. For our purpose para 8 of the judgment, which is relevant, is reproduced below: "8. All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the conditoin for grant of permission/licence for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permis sion/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secre tary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks. " On 8-5-1997 the Supreme Court in modification of earlier interim dtrectoins permitted the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest U. P. to consider on a case to case basis grant of permission to an existing licensed saw mill to relocate itself pro vided that relocated site of saw mill is not within 10 kms. of any existing forest. 15. In view of the aforesaid pro nouncements of the Supreme Court there is no doubt that all the on- going activities within the forest as explained by the Su preme Court have been prohibited without the prior approval of the Central Govern ment It is needless to say that running a saw mill of any kind is a non-forest activ ity which has been completely stopped by the Supreme Court within the area of any forest. The learned Counsel for the revi sionist contended that this prohibition is confined to the unlicensed saw mills. The question, which are the unlicensed saw mills, is to be read in the context of the order dated December 12, 1996 by which the Supreme Court directed that all the on going activities within the forest area in any State throughout the country including the running of saw mills of any kind will cease without the prior approval of the Central Government. It means that if the running of any saw mill in a forest area is prohibited unless approved by the Central Government. An are shall be treated the forest area as defined and explained by the Supreme Court and. It means that if the running of any saw mill in a forest area is prohibited unless approved by the Central Government. An are shall be treated the forest area as defined and explained by the Supreme Court and. therefore it would be proper to direct the Forest Department to submit specific report. 16. In view of the directions of the Supreme Court as modified, the expert committee appointed by the State Gov ernment was required to identify forest, earlier forest and plantation trees belong ing to the Government and private persons and to submit report regarding number of saw mills actually operating within the State with particulars of their ownership, the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing, their proximity to the nearest forest and their source of timber and further to ascertain the sustain able capacity of the forest qua saw mills and timber based industries and the number of existing saw mills which can be safely sustained in the State and the opti mum distance from the forest at which the saw mill should be located. It would be proper that before the disposal of the ap plication for release of saw mill, there should be a specific report of the Forest Department. 17. The learned Cousnel for the appli cant contended that the authorities had no power to seize timber, more so when they were of mango, neem etc. He referred to notification dated 23-10-1997 issued; by the Government which indicates that the certain type of timber has been exempted from the mischief of U. P. Transit of Tim ber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. It means that the exempted category of timber can be transported without a transit pass. 18. The learned Counsel for the appli cant contended that the applicant is enti tled to release of the timber as it was not a property of the Forest Department and the applicant had not committed any offence in storing the timber. 19. The learned Additional Govern ment Advocate contended that under Sec tion 69 of the Indian Forest Act there is presumption that the timber belongs to the Forest Department and it is for the party claiming to prove the ownership. 20. 19. The learned Additional Govern ment Advocate contended that under Sec tion 69 of the Indian Forest Act there is presumption that the timber belongs to the Forest Department and it is for the party claiming to prove the ownership. 20. The learned Counsel for the appli cant relied on a decision of this Court in State of U. P. and another v. Shree Ram Babu Kasari, 1990 (27) ACC 14; 1990 JIC 173 and contended that the applicant is entitled to release of timber for which no offence has been committed nor its seizure was prohibited by the Supreme Court. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion the order passed by the Magistrate de serves to be set aside. The Magistrate shall dispose of the application, after making summary enquiry by giving opportunity to the applicant, Forest Department, Industry Department and the District Magistrate to file documents and affidavits and for this purpose to send notices to senior most offi cers of Forest and Indsutry Departments available in the district and the District Magistrate, who may at their discretion depute responsible officers of the depart ments concerned. For the said purpose the Magsitrate shall dispose of the application after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned preferably within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order. Gov ernment Advocate may apprise the afore said officer about these directions to pre vent delay. The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Magis trate is directed to dispose of the application afresh in the light of the observations made above. Revision allowed .