SATYABRATA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though this matter has been listed to date for admission, on the prayer and consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) HEARD .

(3.) AS regards the offence under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rules, there is material to show that the sized sawn timbers were found in the precinct of the saw mill of the petitioner and he could not show any authority to have the right to possess the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is found from the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that the saw mill along with the precinct was leased out to one Jyostna Mohapatra and that during the time of alleged seizure Jyostna Mohapatra was in possession of the said precinct. Whether Jyostna Mohapatra was in fact in possession of the saw mill and the precinct wherefrom the sized sawn timbers were recovered would be decided at the stage of trial and not at this stage. So while quashing the offence under Section 56 of the O.F. Act and Section 143 of O.S.M. and S.P. (Control) Act, the order taking cognizance under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rules passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.