SANJEEV MISHRA @ SANJIB MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 1.8.2002 (Annexure-2) passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Kalahandi Division, Bhawanipatna in OR No. 98 MR of 2002-03 as well as the order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned District Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in F.A.O. No. 15 of 2002 confirming the order of confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

(2.) The petitioner assails the confiscation order and dismissal of his appeal on the ground that the Courts below have failed to consider the provisions stipulated under Section 56 (2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in its proper perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that in the case at hand, the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) has proved and established beyond reasonable doubt that the jeep in question was never used, neither with his knowledge or connivance or with the knowledge or connivance of his driver. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit contemplated under Section 56 (2-c) of the Act and has prayed for release the vehicle in his favour. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed gross error of law in passing the orders impugned herein without looking into the materials available on record and thereby rendering the impugned orders non-est in the eye of law and they are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither the petitioner (the owner) nor his driver Bibhudatta Behera were transporting the forest produce (0.551 Cu.Mtrs of Sal and Bija Planks) at the time when the vehicle was apprehended and, therefore, neither he nor his driver were in any manner involved in the commission of the alleged forest offence. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his argument in supports of the petitioner's plea for release of the vehicle and sought for quashing of the impugned orders.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Nanda, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, supported the conclusion arrived at by the authorised officer and the learned District Judge and submitted that the concurrent finding of facts having been reached by the Courts below, no justifiable ground has been raised in the present writ application warranting interference with the same.