STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHU &ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P.(C) No. 4271 of 2007 the State has assailed legality of judgment dated 8.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Angul allowing F.A.O. No. 1 of 2007 and setting aside the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Authorized Officer -Cum -Assistant Conservator of Forest, Athamalik Division in C.P. Case No. 4 of 2006 -2007, arising out of O.R. Case No. 1 -A of 2006 -2007 by which seized truck belonging to opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') along with sized wood were confiscated. In W.P.(C) No. 9251 of 2007 the owner has made prayer to direct the opposite party/forest officials to release the seized truck in view of judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Angul in F.A.O. No. 1 of 2007. Therefore, the above writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together.

(2.) AT about 4 A.M. on 17.4.2006 one Chittaranjan Pradhan, forester of Athamallik along with other forest officials detained the seized truck near Gandhi Chhak of Athamallik while the driver of the truck was transporting personal belongings of one Ramesh Chandra Bhutia consequent upon his transfer. It is alleged, on search, 30 pieces of size wood and planks of different sizes were found to be transported without authority. Consequently, proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') was initiated. After enquiry, in course of which evidence was adduced from both sides, the Authorized Officer passed order of confiscation of truck and wood in question.

(3.) IN assailing the impugned judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that Authorized Officer passed order under Section 56 of the Act on the basis of evidence on record which established transportation of sized wood without authority. As many as five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Evidence was also adduced from the side of the owner who examined himself as well as other witnesses. However, the appellate court passed the order being swayed away by stray statements of witnesses Chittaranjan Pradhan, forester and Sweta Kumar Danga who were examined on behalf of the prosecution by holding that sized wood were dismantled parts of furniture. It is argued that the appellate court has failed to take note of the totality of evidence which clearly indicates that seized wood were sized timbers which were being transported in the seized truck without any permit.