STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS Vs. MAHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by means of this writ petition, seek to challenging the judgment dated 20.09.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Keonjhar in FAO No.19 of 2003 allowing the appeal by reversing the order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Authorized Officer to confiscate the seized vehicle bearing registration no.OR-06-1535 and the manganese ore to the Government under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that in the night of 10.08.2002 the Forester of Joda Section of Champua Range, while performing night patrolling inside Baitarani reserve forest accompanied by other forest guards, detected a dumper bearing registration no.OR-06-1535 carrying manganese ore. So, they chased the dumper and seized it along with the manganese ore, though its driver managed to escape. Ultimately, the seized vehicle along with manganese ore, which was being transported without any authority of law, construing the same to be the forest produce, was produced before the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Keonjhar Division, who initiated confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 197

(3.) Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the petitioners-State vehemently urged that manganese ore, being a "mineral" within the meaning of Section 2(g)(ii)(d), is a "forest produce" and the same having been excavated from the reserve forest area and transported therefrom without any valid permit, the opposite party has committed forest offence and is thus liable for punishment. As such, the seized vehicle including the forest produce is liable for confiscation under Section 56 of the Orissa forest Act, 1972. But, however, learned District Judge, Keonjhar has committed gross error by holding, that the manganese ore excavated and transported from reserve forest area is not a "forest produce", and reversing the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer, which is absolutely misconceived, and therefore, interference of this Court is warranted.