STATE OF ORISSA Vs. TARUN KHAMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in F.A.O.37 of 2005.

(2.) THE facts leading to initiation of a Confiscation Proceeding against the opposite party are that on 1.10.2004, the Officer -in -Charge of Rairakhol Police Station seized a vehicle bearing Registration No.OR -15 -E -7644 loaded with 44 pieces of Bija Planks, arrested the driver of the said vehicle and sent information to the Forest Range Officer, Rampur. The Range Officer, Rampur took zima of the vehicle and planks and submitted the records to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rairakhol Division for initiation of a proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act,1972. The driver and the opposite party, who is owner of the vehicle, were noticed to show cause. After consideration of the reply submitted by both of them and on consideration of the materials collected during Confiscation Proceeding, the Authorised Officer -cumDivisional Forest Officer, Rairakhol Division vide order dated 10.6.2005 directed not only for confiscation of the vehicle, but also the timber. Challenging the said order, opposite party filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur and in the impugned order, the learned District Judge came to a categorical finding that the opposite party, who is owner of the vehicle, had no knowledge about such illegal transportation of timber in the vehicle and, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Authorized Officer and allowed the appeal. Challenging the said order passed in appeal, this writ application has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State referring to Section 56(2 -c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 submitted that only when owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or knowledge of his agent, if any, and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such illegal use, the order of confiscation may not be passed by the Authorised Officer. Referring to annexures attached to the writ application, it was contended by learned counsel for the State that though the opposite party has been able to prove that he had no knowledge regarding use of his vehicle for commission of the said forest offence, he has not been able to prove that such offence had been committedby his agent i.e. the driver without knowledge or connivance. The owner has also not been able to prove that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution to prevent use of the said vehicle for commission of the forest offence. According to the learned counsel for the State, involvement of the driver having been proved in course of the Confiscation Proceeding, the impugned order passed by the authority is liable to be set aside.