STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this petition challenging the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 19S9. By the {impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the order of confiscation of some logs/timber, which were found in illegal posse - ssion of opp. party No. 4, passed by the Authorised Officer -cum - Assistant Conservator of Forests, Ghumsur South Division.

(2.) ON 7 -1 -1934, the Range Officer, Kodala, found forest produes such as teak sawn timbers, teak sawn planks, teak timbers., sal timbers, kasi logs, sisoo logs and sal and non -sal containing poles in the premises of opp. party No. 4 No hammer marks were found on the togs. On being called upon, opp. party No. 4 failed to produce any permit or document to show his lawful possession of the said forest produce. The Range Officer, therefore, seized the logs and initiated a proceeding against opp. party No. 4. Ha also made report of the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure had been made. Thereafter, the Authorised Officer issued notice to opp. party No. 4 calling upon him to show cause as to why the goods seized should not be confiscated. Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department and some by opp. party No. 4. After considering the materials placed before him, the Authorised Officer pissed an order of confiscation of some of those logs. That order was passed on 30 -8 -1983. We are not referring to the earlier order passed by the Authorised Officer and the appeal filed against the same as that is not necessary for the purpose of this petition.

(3.) WHAT is urged by the learned Government Advocate is that the learned Additional District Judge has not appreciated the correct position of law and, therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the record. Ha also submitted that no reason whatsoever has been given by the learned Additional District Judge for taking the view that opp. party No. 4 was not given reasonable opportunity to lead evidence.