JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-8-1999, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2881 of 1999, appellants have filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Facts of the case shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that on surprise check of saw mill of respondent No. 1 on 13-7-1995 42 pieces of teak wood were found without hammer mark. This timber was not accounted for in the stock register. The respondent No. 1 was found to have contravened the provisions of section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Kashth Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 1984 (hereinafter to be called as "Adhiniyam" for short). The proceedings for confiscation of the wood and saw mill were initiated. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 under the aforesaid Adhiniyam, who filed his reply to the show cause notice. Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Licencing Authority, after due inquiry passed a detailed order and recorded a finding that there was a breach of the provisions of the Act and Rules and ordered confiscation of unlawfully stored wood together with the saw mill observing that the respondents failed to give satisfactory explanation for unaccounted wood and unhammered teak wood. Against this order of the Divisional Forest, Officer, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Conservator of Forest. The appeal was dismissed by the Conservator of Forest and the order of the Divisional Forest Officer was confirmed. Aggrieved by the order of Conservator of Forest, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Divisional Forest Officer and Conservator of Forest. This order of Additional District Judge, was challenged in the Writ Petition No. 2881 of 1999 before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that u/s 12(1) of the Adhiniyam confiscation is not unqualified. u/s 12 only unaccounted wood can be confiscated. Saw mill cannot be confiscated as it would not be an implement and equipment in regard to the storage of wood. Regarding confiscation of the wood also learned Single Judge held that Additional District Judge recorded a finding regarding the wood and it is not a case worth interference and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by this order, appellants have filed this appeal. Regarding confiscation of the wood also learned Single Judge held that Additional District Judge recorded a finding regarding the wood and it is not a case worth interference and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by this order, appellants have filed this appeal. We have heard Shri P.D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for appellants and Shri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents and carefully perused the record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that at the time of surprise inspection by the officers of flying squad No. 2, 173 logs were found in the Saw Mill of the respondent No. 1, which included 42 logs of teak wood which were without any hammer mark. A show cause notice annexed with the petition as Annexure P. 4 was given to the respondent No. 1. In the reply he submitted that there is no law or rule that the logs without hammer mark were not meant to be stored. If at all they were not hammer marked it was the fault of the person responsible for putting the hammer marks. Learned counsel also submitted that at the time of inspection, it was found that 42 logs of timber were fresh. Vide order No. 1603 dated 10-6-1993 the respondents were permitted to transport 95 pieces of timber. Timber found in the premises of saw mill at the time of surprise checking were not tallying with the timber which was transported vide order No. 1603 dated 10-6-1993 on the basis of transport licence Nos. 4600/26, 4600/29, 4600/39 and 4600/43 and the 42 logs were different from the logs transported in terms of the above referred transport licence. Quantity found at the time of surprise check was more than what was described in the above referred transport licence. Statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded on 9t7-1995. In the statement he admitted that most of the logs were received in the saw mill in the night. He used to check hammer marks after the gap of 2-4 days. Such explanation cannot help the respondent No. 1. Statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded on 9t7-1995. In the statement he admitted that most of the logs were received in the saw mill in the night. He used to check hammer marks after the gap of 2-4 days. Such explanation cannot help the respondent No. 1. Panchnama prepared by the forest officer was signed by Vinod Kumar Agarwal who is none but the brother of the respondent No. 1, therefore, the finding of the Additional District Judge that logs found at the time of inspection were duly hammer marked and were the subject-matter of above referred transport licence issued during the period February 1993 to April 1995 is not correct. Per contra, Shri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1, submitted that on 14-6-1995 officers of the Forest Department inspected the saw mill of the respondent. No. 1 and found that the stock available was as per stock register. No illegal wood was found at the saw mill and, therefore, the finding of the Divisional Forest Officer and Conservator that 42 logs of timber were found in violation of the provisions of section 9 of the Adhiniyam are not correct and learned Additional District Judge rightly allowed the appeal. On careful perusal of the material on record, we find that 42 logs of timber which were seized from the saw mill of the respondent No. 1, were without any hammer mark, were different from those logs which were shown in the account book, they were fresh and it was unaccounted timber. We also feel that the respondent No. 1 very cleverly tried to mix the illegally received timber with the timber received on different transport licences issued between the period from February, 1993 to April, 1995. The quantity found at the time of surprise check was more than what was mentioned in the above referred transport licences. The record also reveals that in the statement of respondent No. 1 recorded by the Forest Authorities he admits that most of the logs were received in the mid night and they could not be checked immediately to ensure as to whether they contained hammer marks or not. The record also reveals that in the statement of respondent No. 1 recorded by the Forest Authorities he admits that most of the logs were received in the mid night and they could not be checked immediately to ensure as to whether they contained hammer marks or not. Merely because on 14-6-1995 during inspection no illegal wood was found in the saw mill of respondent No. 1, it cannot be said that on 13-7-1995 when the surprise check was undertaken by the flying squad, the position did not change. The position, as it existed on 13-7-1995, is relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal and not the position as it existed on 14-6-1995. Therefore, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandla in this regard is not sustainable. There is sufficient material to give a finding that on 13-7-1995 at the time of surprise inspection by the officers of flying squad 42 logs of teak were found without hammer mark. These logs were fresh. It was also found that the timber discovered in the premises of the saw mill at the time of surprise check did not tally with the timber which was transported vide different transport licences. The quantity found at the time of surprise check was more than what was described in different transport licences and the respondent No. 1 could not give any satisfactory explanation and his only explanation was that as the logs were received in the night the hammer marks could not be checked. Such explanation cannot absolve him. The only conclusion which can be arrived at on the basis of the material is that the respondent No. 1 contravened the provisions of the Act. The veracity of the Panchnama prepared by the forest officers at the time of inspection cannot be doubted. This Panchnama is signed by Vinod Kumar Agrawal who is none but the brother of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that logs found at the time of inspection were duly hammer marked and there was no contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the Act, cannot be sustained. This Panchnama is signed by Vinod Kumar Agrawal who is none but the brother of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that logs found at the time of inspection were duly hammer marked and there was no contravention of the provisions of section 9 of the Act, cannot be sustained. Regarding the confiscation, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that unaccounted wood was stored in the saw mill and, therefore, the licencing officer had jurisdiction to order the confiscation of the stock of wood unlawfully stored together with the plants and machinery. The learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that learned single Judge committed serious error while holding that the saw mill could not have been confiscated as the saw mill could not be said to be the implement and equipment in regard to the storage of the wood. For the proper appreciation of the arguments submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State it will be apposite to quote section 12(1) of the Adhiniyam which reads as under:- 12. Confiscation of saw mill etc.- (1) Save as provided in clause (b) of section 4- (a) where a saw mill or saw pit is established or operated in an area declared to be a prohibited area under sub-section (1) of section 5; or (b) where a saw mill or saw pit is established, operated without a licence or without renewal of licence under sub-sections (2) and (4) respectively of section 6; or (c) where the saw mill or saw pit is operated after suspension or revocation of a licence under sub-section (5) of section 6; or (d) where the saw mill or saw pit is operated with the aid of electrical energy or electrical installation or contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of section 10; or (e) unaccounted wood is stored in the saw mill or saw pit, the licencing officer may order confiscation of the stock of wood unlawfully stored together with whole or portion of the plants and machinery, implements and equipments which have been used in the commission of the offence. Plain reading of this section depicts that the licencing officer may order for confiscation of three categories of things, they being- (i) all the stock of wood unlawfully stored (ii) whole or portion of the plant and machinery; and (iii) implements and equipments which have been used for the commission of the offence. The section nowhere provides that plant and machinery can be confiscated only if it is used in the storage of wood. The words used in section 12 are "used in the commission of the offence". Learned single Judge committed serious error in reading the words "in regard to the storage of wood" in place of "commission of offence". For the confiscation it was not necessary that the implements and equipments should have been used in regard to the storage of wood. What is required is implements and equipments should have been used in the commission of the offences. For the confiscation of the sawmill, it is hot necessary that it should have been used for the storage of wood. The long title of section 12 itself provides for confiscation of saw mill etc. Under this section the licencing officer may order not only for confiscation of stock of wood stored but also the whole or portion of the plants and machinery and also the implements and equipments which have been used in the commission of the offence. Where the unaccounted wood and logs without hammer mark were stored in the saw mill, there being the violation of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Adhiniyam the licencing authority was within its jurisdiction to order confiscation of not only the stock of wood unlawfully stored but also the whole or portion of the plant and machinery. For the aforementioned reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned order dated 9-8-1999, passed by the learned single Judge confirming the order dated 4-2-1999, passed by Additional District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No. 6797. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-8-1999 and that of Additional District Judge, Mandla, dated 4-2-1999, are hereby set aside and the order dated 21-1-1997 passed by Conservator of Forest, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur and the order dated 30-4-1996, passed by the Licencing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, West(T), Forest Division, Mandla, stand restored. Final Result : Allowed