LAXMIDHAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's truck was seized by forest Range Officer on a reasonable suspicion that it was involved in commission of a forest offence. In the proceedings initiated under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"), the Authorised Officer passed an order for confiscation of the truck. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 56(2-e) to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the truck was seized. The appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) When this petition earlier came up for hearing before a Division Bench, a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that under Section 56, the concerned District Judge has the power to hear and (sic) appeal, and, therefore, disposal of his appeal by the Sessions Judge, even though he also happens to be the District Judge, should be regarded as ultra vires. In support of that contention, the Division Bench decision of this court in Narahari Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 64 Cut LT 233, was relied upon. In that case, the appeal preferred under Section 56(2-e) of the Act was heard and disposed of by the Sessions Judge, who was also the District Judge for that area. It was held that the order passed by the Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction. The rea sons given for taking that view are quoted below : -

(3.) What is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 56(2-e), an appeal against an order of confiscation lies to District Judge. Even though District Judge and Sessions Judge for the area may be the same, the legislature has thought it fit to confer the power on District Judge only. Therefore, the District and Sessions Judge, Puri, could have heard and disposed of the appeal in his capacity as District Judge only. As the Sessions Judge, Puri, had no jurisdiction whatso ever to deal with and dispose of the petitioner's appeal, the decision rendered by him should be regarded as ultra vires. He further submitted that while hearing a Criminal Appeal by Sessions Judge, different principles of appreciation of evidence are applied and, for that reason, it should be held that prejudice was caused to the petitioner. He also submitted that the two capacities being different, disposal of an appeal made to the District Judge by the Sessions Judge should not be regarded as a matter of technicality only but should be treated as a matter of substance in view of the lack of jurisdic tion to hear and decide the same.