UDAY CHANDRA PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of confiscation under Section 56(2-A) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') passed on 7-5-2002 by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest. Keonjhar in O.R.No.318-K of 2001-2002 is under challenge. By that order a jeep bearing Registration No.BIR 135 was directed to be confiscated.

(2.) On 29-10-2001. in course okregular patrolling, the forest officials chased, intercepted and searched the aforesaid jeep and found a case of illegal transportation of 11 pieces of hand sawn Sal sizes i.e. 9.59 eft. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as the owner of the vehicle and his younger brother Govinda Chandra Patnaik as the driver of the vehicle. Show cause was filed by each of them. In his show cause, petitioner pleaded his ignorance regarding involvement of the jeep in canying forest produce. The driver stated that on being requested by some unknown persons, he accepted the fare and loaded the said seized wood. Though both of them filed such show cause, they did not participate in the further enquiry. Thus, after examination of the witnesses the Authorised Officer conducted the enquiry and passed orders cf confiscation on the finding that the case of transporting of the forest produce without valid permit made out a forest offence because of breach of Rules 4, 12 and 212 of the Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. Petitioner challenged that order in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2002 and learned District Judge, Keonjhar after hearing the parties remanded the case to the Authorised Officer with direction to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and also to adduce evidence from his side.

(3.) The Authorised Officer permitted the petitioner to cross-examine all the witnesses except the Range Officer, Keonjhar and also recorded the evidence of witnesses, examined on behalf of the petitioner and the driver. On fresh assessment of the evidence on record, the Authorised Officer again passed an order of confiscation on 3-3-2003, reiterating his finding as noted above. Petitioner, challenged that order before the District Judge, Keonjhar in F. A. No. 9 of 2003. After hearing the parties, on 9-3-2004. learned District Judge confirmed the impugned order of confiscation and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed by the registered owner of the jeep.