JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the First appellate court dismissing the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur Road under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. 2. The Petitioner faced trial before the Judicial Magistrate under Rule 21 of the Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (in short 'the Rules') for violation of Rules 4, 12 and 14 of the said Rules. 3. The fact, in short, is that on 4-7-1992 at about 8 a.m., p. w. 2, the Range Officer, Pandadhara Range searched the house and premises of the Petitioner on the authority of the D.F.O. Keonjhar and recovered 594 pieces of sawn timber of different size and 5 quintals of the fire wood which was stored in his premises. The Petitioner having failed to produce any authority for the possession of the same, prosecution report was submitted against him. The case of the Petitioner was that he had purchased 16 pieces of Sal Sawn logs from Muniguda Depot of the Orissa Forest Corporation Limited on 9-2-1992 and brought the same to his residence at Jajpur on the strength of Timber Transit permit. His further case is that he had converted those 16 pieces of round logs into 446 pieces of sawn sizes. Accordingly, the Petitioner contended that the Range Officer had illegally seized the articles from his premises and started this prosecution illegally. 4. During trial, the petititioner produced documents to show that he had purchased 16 pieces of Sal round logs from Muniguda Depot of the Orissa Forest Corporation Limited and later he had converted them into 446 pieces of sawn sizes. The learned Magistrate has, however, found that the documents produced by the Petitioner during trial did not relate to the seized sawn timbers. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate concluded that the Petitioner failed to show any valid document to possess the seized forest produce under Rule 12 of the Rules. The Magistrate, therefore, convicted the Petitioner under Rule 21 of the Rules for violation of Rule 14 of the said Rules and convicted him the reunder and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. 5. The Magistrate, therefore, convicted the Petitioner under Rule 21 of the Rules for violation of Rule 14 of the said Rules and convicted him the reunder and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. 5. The Petitioner carried an appeal but did not meet with success.The appellate court noticed that the Petitioner failed to account for excess pieces of sawn logs which was seized from his possession. The stock register disclosed that 446 pieces were sawn but actually the seizure of 595 pieces of sawn logs was effected by the Range Officer. It was noticed that Sisu sawn logs were also seized by the Range Officer from the possession of the Petitioner. The appellate court noticed that the Petitioner could not produce any permit for Sisu sawn timber and accordingly concluded that he had transported the same without any permit. The appellate court found further that the Petitioner has transported sawn logs in excess of permit issued to him. He was of the view that offence under Rule 21 of the Rules was complete. In that view of the matter, the lower appellate court concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate and upheld the order of conviction and sentence. 6. It is not in dispute that 595 pieces of sawn logs were seized from the possession of the Petitioner. The documents produced by the Petitioner show that he had purchased 16 pieces of round Sal logs and later converted them into 446 pieces of sawn sizes. The seizure-list discloses that some Sisu sawn logs were also seized from the possession of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has failed to account for possession of excess pieces of sawn Sal logs and some quantity of Sisu sawn woods. 7. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner having failed to account for possession of these pieces of sawn Sal logs and Sisu sawn woods shall be presumed to be guilty for removing, transporting such forest produce from the reserve forest without any authority. 7. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner having failed to account for possession of these pieces of sawn Sal logs and Sisu sawn woods shall be presumed to be guilty for removing, transporting such forest produce from the reserve forest without any authority. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to Section 73-A of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 which reads thus: 73-A. Presumption as to removal and transportation of forest produce-Any person found in possession of any forest produce within the limits of any reserved forest shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be guilty of removing or, as the case may be, transporting such forest produce from the reserved forests without authority. 8. It is not disputed that the articles seized from the possession of the present Petitioner are forest produce. "Forest produce" includes timber as well. The said defimtion can be found in Section 2(g)(i)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. This being the position, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Petitioner was in possession of forest produce for in excess of the article said to have been purchased from the Orissa Forest Corporation Limited and carried to his premises on the basis of transit permit. The learned Counsel for the State has drawn my attention to the finding of the trial court to the effect that the documents produced by the Petitioner for possession of these logs of wood do not relate to the seized sawn timber. There has been concurrent findings of facts of both the courts below that the Petitioner was in possession of forest produce for in excess of the quantity covered by the transit permit. This being the position, I think there is no justification for disturbing the finding of the courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed