ORDER 2.4.2007 — Even though this matter has been listed to date for admis¬sion, on the prayer and consent of learned counsel for the par¬ties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard. In this CRLMC the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.4.2001 passed by the S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in 2(b) CC No.2 of 2001 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 56 of the O.F. Act, Section 13 of O.S.M. & S.P. (Control) Act and Rule 21 of O.T.T. Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 56 of the O.F. Act and Section 13 of O.S.M. & S.P. (Control) Act not being penal Sections, the Court below ought not have taken cognizance against the petitioner under those Sec¬tions. Admittedly those two Sections are not penal Sections. As such cognizance taken thereunder deserves to be quashed. As regards the offence under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rules, there is material to show that the sized sawn timbers were found in the precinct of the saw mill of the petitioner and he could not show any authority to have the right to possess the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is found from the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecu¬tion that the saw mill along with the precinct was leased out to one Jyostna Mohapatra and that during the time of alleged seizure Jyostna Mohapatra was in possession of the said precinct. Whether Jyostna Mohapatra was in fact in possession of the saw mill and the precinct wherefrom the sized sawn timbers were recovered would be decided at the stage of trial and not at this stage. So while quashing the offence under Section 56 of the O.F. Act and Section 143 of O.S.M. & S.P. (Control) Act, the order taking cognizance under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rules passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. In the result the CRLMC is allowed in part. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. CRLMC allowed in part.