STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JYOTSHNA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner State and the learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The petitioner-State has challenged in this writ petition an order of the learned District Judge, Cuttack passed in F.A.O. No. 15 of 2008 setting aside an order of confiscation passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh in O.R. Case No. 20C of 2001-02 under the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the opposite party having not running a saw mill/saw pit, the confiscation proceeding initiated against the seized woods and implements for violation of Section 13(2) of the Act by the licensing authority was without jurisdiction, so also vitiated for noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of the enquiry under Rule-4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rule, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") before prosecution launched as held in the case of Rabi Narayan Sahu v. Range Officer of Sorada Range and Others, 2008 (II) OLR 592.

(3.) It appears form the record that Forest staff of Cuttack Range Divisional Mobile Party and Police personnel raided the carpentry shop of the opposite party wherefrom huge quantity of furniture and sawn sizes were seized and thereafter a prosecution was lodged by the Licensing Officer under the Act indicating therein that the opposite party was running a saw pit without license inasmuch as he was carrying on sawing operations inside the premises and confiscated the stock seized. An appeal being carried out against the aforesaid order before the learned District Judge. Cuttack by the petitioner, the learned District Judge, Cuttack rendered finding as aforesaid and quashed the prosecution overruling the objection of the counsel for the State that the appeal before the District Judge was not maintainable on the ground that the carpentry unit of the opposite party is not coming under the purview of the Act and also the statutory mandate for conducting the enquiry by a Range Officer has not been made by the Range Officer as held in the case of Rabi Narayan Sahu (supra), and others.