BHAIGA PRADHAN @ PAHAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER-CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, BERHAMPUR FOREST DIVISION, BERHAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions arise out of a confiscation proceeding initiated under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 vide O.R. Case No.18 of 2008 -2009.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 26.9.2008, the forest staff headed by the Forester detected one Tractor loaded with some teak logs on the P.W.D. road from Sumandal -Vegiput near Bhaliaghar while patrolling in night. The driver of the Tractor Siba Swain could not produce any document in support of transportation of the said logs on demand of the Forester. One Rabindra Pradhan, who was escorting the aforesaid Tractor arrived in a motorcycle and admitted that his father is the owner of the said Tractor and it was used for transportation of twelve teak logs from village Kumbhargaon. He also could not produce any document in support of such transportation. Therefore, the Forester seized the Tractor bearing Registration No.OR -07 -3459, The Trolley bearing Registration No.OR -O7 -B -3460 and the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.OR -07 -P -9446 along with the teak logs measuring 61.91 Cfts. A case was registered for commission of offence under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and also for violation of Rule 4 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to the driver of the Tractor Siba Swain as well as to the son of the owner, namely, Rabindra Pradhan. Thereafter an offence report was prepared and confiscation proceeding bearing O.R. Case No.18 of 2008 -2009 of Khallikote Range was started before the Authorised Officer -cum -Divisional Forest Officer, Berhampur Division, Berhampur. The Authorised Officer by order dated 18.2.2010 directed confiscation of the Tractor, Trolley and the Motorcycle as well the timber seized while being transported. The said order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer was challenged in appeal by the said Rabindra Pradhan, Siba Swain and the father of Rabindra Pradhan in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur. By judgment and order dated 15.7.2011, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur allowed the appeal. Challenging the order of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, the State has filed W.P.(C) No.32387 of 2011. The owner of the vehicle, namely, Bhaiga Pradhan has filed W.P.(C) No.32031 of 2011 for release of the seized articles on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the order of the Authorised Officer as well as the order of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge in appeal, they were heard together and are disposed of in a common order,

(3.) THE learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle submitted that the Authorised Officer failed to appreciate the evidence available on record which clearly shows that the vehicle had been used for commission of the forest offence without the knowledge and connivance of the owner and the owner had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use of the vehicle. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 4 (2) of the 1980 Rule is mandatory but was not followed by the Range Officer and therefore, the entire confiscation proceeding is vitiated.