NARENDRA BEURA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order of confiscation at Annexure 2 passed by opposite party No. 2-Authorised Officer-cum-D.F.O., Dhenkanal Forest Division, Dhenkanal confiscating the JCB bearing Registration No. OR-04-3772 in exercise of power under Section 56(2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in an appeal i.e. F.A.O. No. 11 of 2014 filed by the petitioner vide judgment under Annexure-3, with a prayer to quash the impugned order and judgment at Annexure-2 and 3 on the ground that the same are outcome of error of law apparent on the record as his JCB was not used in commission of an offence in respect of any forest produce, so also the petitioner in this case has discharged the burden that his aforesaid JCB was used for the alleged purpose without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his agent or the person in charge of the same and all of them had taken the reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent the use of the same in a forest offence in respect of a forest produce.

(3.) During the course of hearing, drawing the notice of this Court to Section 56(2-a) of the Act which speaks that when an authorised officer seizes any forest produce under Sub-section (1) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he shall order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case no offence having been committed in respect of any forest produce, the JCB does not become liable for confiscation even if for sake of argument the same is assumed to have been used in commission of any forest offence. The learned counsel has further submitted that admittedly the petitioner had given his JCB on hire and the person hiring the JCB had no knowledge that the land which was broken was a forest land and in that factual background even if it is accepted that an forest offence was committed entailing an confiscation, as the petitioner-owner in this case has brought enough materials indicating the fact that the same was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his driver who was in charge of it and both of them cannot be said to have allowed the use of the same knowing the fact that a forest offence is going to be committed, the JCB is not liable for confiscation. In such premises, the impugned order of confiscation, so also the judgment of the Appellate Court confirming the same were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.