STATE OF ORISSA Vs. QUAZI ALI AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the State of Orissa through its functionary assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 13.01.2009 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Balasore in FAO No. 21/34 of 2008 modifying the order of confiscation dated 24.01.2008 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bhadrak Wildlife Division, Chandabali in O.R. Case No. 18-B of 2006-07.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that on receiving information from reliable source regarding transportation of teak logs in a mini truck, the Range Officer, Bhadrak (Wild Life) on 08.03.2007 proceeded to Bagurai Chhak with Forester, Bhadrak and P. Sethi, Forest Guard, Bhandaripokhari and watched the movement. At about 11 P.M., a mini truck bearing registration no.OSB-5259 proceeding towards Bhadrak was detained and on search it was found to be loaded with 7 pieces of teak logs. On being asked, the driver of the vehicle could not produce any valid permit/transit pass in support of such transportation. As a result, the vehicle (mini truck) along with the timbers was seized and O.R. Case No.18-B of 2006-2007 was registered for violation of Rules-4, 12 and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. The seized forest produce was produced before the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bhadrak Wild Life Division, Chandbali for initiation of confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of Orissa Forest Act, 1972. Thereafter, the Authorized Officer, by following statutory formalities, proceeded with the enquiry and after going through the oral and documentary evidence available on record passed order dated 24.01.2008 confiscating the mini truck bearing registration No.OSB-5259 along with teak timber volume 27.00 Cft. to the Government. Against the said order of the Authorized Officer, the opposite party filed appeal before the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Balasore, which was registered as FAO No.21/34 of 2008. The learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Balasore, by order dated 13.01.2009, while holding that the forest offence was committed, allowed the appeal in part and, while confirming the confiscation of the seized forest produce, modified the order of confiscation of the vehicle and substituted the same by imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) in default the opposite party would undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was also directed that in case the penalty was paid and appeal was not preferred, the seized motor vehicle which has been confiscated under Section-56 of the Forest Act, would be released in favour of the opposite party.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocated contended that Section-56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 does not contemplate for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation. Consequentially, the direction given by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Balasore for imposition of penalty of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) in lieu of confiscation of vehicle and for release of the same is absolutely misconceived. More so, if Section-56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 does not contemplate the provision for imposing penalty, the impugned order so passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Balasore in appeal is without jurisdiction and, as such, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law.