Judgment 1. In this civil revision challenge is to the judgment dated 22.02.2012 in CMA. No.8 of 2011 of the District Court, Kasaragod setting aside annexure 1 order dated 03.01.2011 in K.G.O.R. No.3/2001 (KB-945/2001) of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur (for short, "the authorized officer"). 2. Altogether, 18 pieces of rose wood timber were seized by the forest officials for which a case was registered as K.G.O.R. No.3/2001 of Kasaragod range. According to the department, 16 of those logs were collected from Kasaragod range of the reserve forest while 2 pieces were collected from other government forest. The authorized officer initiated proceeding for confiscation under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act 1961 ("the Act" for short). That resulted in Annexure 1 order. That order was set aside by the learned District Judge, Kasargode in C.M.A. No.8 of 2011. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader contends that findings entered by the learned District Judge are not correct. It is also contended that even the respondent never had any claim over the 18 pieces of rose wood timber seized by the department. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent while asserting that respondent is not in any way connected with the seizure of rose wood logs contends that the authorized officer had no authority to direct prosecution of petitioner under provisions of the Act. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that even according to the forest department, 2 of the seized timber were (allegedly) collected from other government forest in which case in view of the decision in Moideen v. assistant Wild Life Warden [ 2010 (4) KLT 41 ] the authorized officer had no authority to order confiscation of those 2 peaces. 5. In response, learned special government pleader submits that the judgment in Moideen v. assistant Wild Life Warden is under challenge in the Supreme Court. 6. Having heard learned special government pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent, I am inclined to think it is not necessary to go in to the merit of the contentions parties have raised. For, respondent has no objection in the 18 pieces of rose wood timber being seized or confiscated by the authorities concerned. Respondent is not making any claim over it, as well. For, respondent has no objection in the 18 pieces of rose wood timber being seized or confiscated by the authorities concerned. Respondent is not making any claim over it, as well. Grievance of respondent is only with respect to the direction the authorized officer has issued in Annexure 1 order to proceed against the respondent for offences under the Act. 7. On going through 61 (A) of the Act, it is not seen that the authorized officer is vested with any power to direct prosecution of any person concerned. The said provision only deals with confiscation of timber, charcoal, fire wood, or ivory which is the property of the government. Therefore, direction in Annexure 1 order to prosecute petitioner for offences punishable under the Act cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. In other aspects, having regard to the stand of the respondent as stated above, it was not necessary for learned district judge to interfere with the order of confiscation. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed as under. 1. Judgment of learned District Judge, Kasaragode in C.M.A. No. 8/2011 is set aside. 2. In view of the contention raised by the respondent that he has no connection with any of the rose wood timber seized, there is no reason to interfere with Annexure 1 order dated 03.01.2011 confiscating the rose wood timber. 3. But, the direction issued by the authorized officer in Annexure 1 order to prosecute the respondent for offences under the Kerala Forest Act is set aside. 4. It is made clear that independent of the said direction, it is open to the department concerned, if otherwise entitled, to proceed against the respondent for any offence alleged to be committed by him. 5. It is also made clear that in no such prosecution, the order of confiscation above stated shall be relied on as a piece of evidence since the order of confiscation is being sustained on the plea of respondent that he has no interest in the timber seized and therefore, has no objection to its confiscation.