NARAHARI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of confiscation of a truck bearing registration No. ORX 4614 under Section 56 (2 -a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') passed by the Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Puri Division, Khurda (hereinafter referred to as (the Authorised Officer) and affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Puri has been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be recounted. The Petitioner is the owner of the truck. Though himself was its driver, on account of his illness he engaged one Rajkishore Pradhan as driver thereof (hereinafter referred to as 'the driver '). On the relevant date, namely, 22 -9 -1985 the truck was engaged in transporting metal chips from Tapang Stone Quarry to Bhubaneswar. On that day one Kedar Baliarsing approached the driver for transport of furniture from village Goudiapada near Jankia Police Station beyond the Tapang Stone Quarry to Bhubaneswar on hire. The driver agreed loaded metal chips and proceeded to village Goudiapada. In that village the metal chips were unloaded and 355 pieces of sized teak planks and timber were loaded. In order to conceal the same, the metal chips were reloaded, thus giving an impression that the truck was transporting only metal chips. Early in the morning (23 -9 -1985), however, some police officers and forest officers on patrol duty saw the truck transporting metal chips at a place where there was no stone quarry and so they got suspicious and detained the truck. On inspection, they found that sized teak planks and timber were being transported concealed under metal chips without any timber transit permit or authority. They seized the planks and timber as well as, the truck on suspicion that a forest offence had been committed and produced the same with a report before the Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 56 of the Act, served notice on the Petitioner and gave opportunity to him to defend his case. The defence of the Petitioner was that he had no knowledge that the driver was transporting teak planks and timber unauthorisedly. He had not permitted the driver for transport of forest produce and in view of the stringent law had prohibited him for transport of such goods. Therefore, for the illegal act of the driver, the truck, which he had purchased by obtaining loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation, was not liable for confiscation. The Authorised Officer recorded statements, conducted enquiry and heard the Petitioner. He negatived the defence and held that the Petitioner was unable to prove that he had neither knowledge nor connivance for illegal transport of forest produce in the truck. Therefore, he directed confiscation thereof.

(3.) FOR a proper decision of the case before us the following two points are necessary and relevant: