MANORANJAN GHOSH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Heard Shri R.K. Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Bikram Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State.

(2.) The writ petition involves a challenge to the order involving Annexure-1 passed in Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2001 involving commission of an offence by the petitioner under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

(3.) Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.OR-06-A-5521 directed to be confiscated on the basis of an Offence Report No.40R of 2000-01 of Ranpur Forest Range by the Authorized Officer and Asst. Conservator of Forests, Puri Division, Khurda. Facts as available, at about 11 a.m. on 22.09.2000 on N.H. No.5 near T.B. Hospital Chandpur, Range Officer, Ranpur Forest Range with the assistance of local police on search of the truck bearing above number detected illegal transportation of seized timber in violation of Rule-4 of the Orissa Timber Transit and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for short "the O.T.T and O.F.P. Rules") and punishable under Rule-21 of the said Rules, made seizure of the truck transported seized timber at the spot from the driver of the vehicle. After entering into enquiry involving the driver and recording his statement, submitted Offence Rreport No.40R dated 22.09.2000 under Rule-4 of the O.T.T. and O.F.P. Rules. Consequent upon submission of the report, the Authorized Officer invited showcause from both owner and driver of the vehicle and after providing due opportunity to the respective parties, passed order for confiscation of the seized timber as well as the truck under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle while not disputing the seizure of timber from his truck, challenged the confiscation proceeding on the premises of his driver being force-led by some miscreants on thread print and loading the seized materials under threat to the deriver. It also appears, in the proceeding the driver also apart from his statement given to the Range Officer has also given deposition before the Authorized Officer. On appreciation of the materials available on record as well as the evidence, the Authorized Officer found the petitioner guilty of commissioning of offence under the provisions indicated hereinabove and thereby directed for confiscation of both materials as well as the truck. Filing the appeal, the owner reiterating his stand before the appellate Court submitted that there is no proper consideration of the materials available on record by the Authorized Officer resulting the order of confiscation bad. Hearing the contentions of rival parties and on consideration of the materials available on record and taking into consideration the decision cited by the respective parties, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal in confirmation of the order passed by the Authorized Officer.