STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JYOSHNA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the State of Orissa has assailed the Judgment passed by the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack in F.A.O. No. 59 of 2006, disposed of on 30.06.2007, allowing the application of the Opp. Party, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer -cum -Authorised Officer, Athagarh directing confiscation of the Opp. Party's Truck bearing Registration No. OR -05H -1869. The facts leading to this Writ Petition, may be stated as follows:

(2.) THE Order Dated 23.02.2004 passed by the Authorised Officer was challenged before the Learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2004. The Learned District Judge, Cuttack vide his Order Dated 11.07.2005 set aside the order of the Authorised Officer as the latter had not given any definite finding on the facts by analyzing the oral & documentary evidence on record. Therefore, the Learned District Judge has remanded the matter back to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal. The Authorised Officer by his Order Dated.18.03.2006 has reiterated his earlier decision. The matter was again challenged before the Learned District Judge, Cuttack in F.A.O. No. 59 of 2006. The Learned District Judge again set aside the order of the Authorised Officer & remanded the matter back to him to give a reasoned order after fully analyzing the evidence, both oral & documentary on record. Being aggrieved by order remand, the Opp. Party approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13147 of 2006. This Court set aside the order of the Learned District Judge & as per the Order Dated 08.11.2006 directed the Learned District Judge to dispose of the matter finally on the basis of the materials on record instead of remanding the case to the Authorised Officer.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid three considerations, the Learned District Judge, Cuttack has come to the conclusion that no forest offence has been committed. Thus, the Opp. Party is not required to satisfy that the vehicle was used for commission of forest offence without her knowledge, connivance etc. In course of hearing, Mr. Rath, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel took pains in pointing out that the Timber Transit Permit granted to the Petitioner & the wood seized after physical verification are at variants. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. Secondly, it is stated that there are number of cases against the Opp. Party on the allegation that she has committed forest offences. Thirdly, it is suggested that the finding of the Learned District Judge, Cuttack that there was no physical verification & there is detection of fresh cut green timbers & the old timbers are not detected by any chemical examination is due to non -application of judicial mind. In other words, the Learned Addl. Standing Counsel representing the State has prayed for re -appreciation of evidence/materials on record for setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Court.