DAITARY SAMANTARAY Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER BARIPADA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of an ambassador car bearing registration number ORU 7621. The said car having been confiscated by the Authorised Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act and the said order of confiscation having been affirmed by the District Judge in appeal against the order of the Authorised Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court. The order of the Authorised Officer has been annexed as Annexure-3 and that of the appellate authority has been annexed as Annexure-4.

(2.) On 19-12-1991, the Forestor, Kuliana Forest, found that 56 pieces of Peasal Timbers were being transported by a truck bearing registration number O.S.U. 8371 and the said truck was being escorted by a car bearing registration number ORU 7621. Since for transporting the timbers there wand no permission of the competent authority under the provisions of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, and since the Forestor formed the opinion that forest offence has been committed as Rules 4, 12 and 21 of the Rules have been violated and there has been abetment of the commission of forest offence under Section 85,of the Orissa Forest Act, he seized both the vehicles together with the timbers which were being transported in the truck and reported the matter for initiation of a confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. On the basis of the said report, the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Baripada Division, initiated the confiscation proceeding and came to the conclusion that the ambassador car bearing registration number ORU 7621 having abetted the commission of forest offence under Section 85 of the Orissa Forest Act, as it was escorting the truck carrying Peasal and Kaima timbers without any valid transit permit, the truck as well as the car is liable for confiscation and accordingly passed the order of confiscation of the car bearing registration number ORJ 7621. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the learned District Judge having dismissed the appeal and having affirmed the order of confiscation, the present writ application has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the car in question not having been found to be used for the commission of any forest offence, the provisions of Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act cannot be made applicable and, therefore, no order of confiscation could have been passed in relation to the said car in question. He further contends that the appellate authority committed gross error in confirming the order of confiscation on a finding that the car was used in abetting the commission of a forest offence and, therefore, the same is liable to be confiscated. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that even though the car might not have been used in the commission of forest offence, but since the offenders were escorting the truck which was actually involved in the commission of forest offence by travelling in the car, the car must be said to have been used in the commission of forest offence and, therefore, the order of confiscation is unassailable.