DIBAKAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2017 rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner under section 457 of the Crimial P.C. 1973.

(2.) The backdrop of the case is that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in the local Bar of Hindol. During Phylin Storm on 110.2013, about 40 to 50 teak trees were uprooted and broken standing on the own recorded land of the father of the petitioner and another. On 14.11.2013, the petitioner filed a petition before the D.F.O. Dhenkanal seeking permission under O.T.T. Rules to bring those teak trees to his house under the apprehension of theft and damage. The D.F.O., Dhenkanal sent a letter to the Tahasildar, Hindol as well as concerned Range Officer, for making a joint verification and submission of report. Since there was inordinate delay in conducting the verification and there was theft of some trees, the petitioner with the help of his brother cut and converted the uprooted trees to 116 pieces of logs and brought and kept those in his house for preparing furnitures for his daughter's marriage. While sitting over the application of the petitioner to grant necessary permit, the Forest Officials conducted raid in his house on 19.10.2016 and seized the said 116 nos. of teak wood and booked the petitioner and his brother in a case of forest offence vide 2(b)CC Case No. 09 of 2017 on the file of learned SDJM, Hindol. In the meantime, the petitioner moved this Court in WP (C) No. 16870 of 2017 which was disposed of on 28.08.2017 directing the concerned forest officials to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within a specified time. Thereafter, a joint verification was conducted and a report was submitted that 41 nos. of stumps were available on the Recorded Holding Land of the petitioner. Despite such developments, the application of the petitioner was not disposed of and ultimately, it was rejected with the observation that the petitioner had violated the O.T.T. Rules by transporting and stacking the forest materials in his house without any valid documents which is punishable under O.F. Act and O.T.T. Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol for release of those seized wood in his favour, but it has been rejected by the impugned order with the observation that at present there is no material regarding the submission of the petitioner that 116 pieces of teak wood belonged to 41 stumps found in his land and hence his claim of ownership thereof, cannot be considered.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it remained admitted by the prosecution that the petitioner had made an application seeking necessary permission as back as in the year 201 The concerned officials sat over the matter and all of a sudden, entering house of the petitioner on 19.10.2016 seized the teak wood. It was further submitted that the concerned Officer who seized the wood has been examined before the learned trial Court in the meantime as P.W.1 who was acting as Forester during the relevant period. He has admitted in his evidence that at the time of seizure, the petitioner was absent and his brother was present in his house and had submitted that those wood related to the uprooted and broken trees on their own land and that despite their application for necessary permission, it was not granted and since the wood were apprehended to be damaged and stolen away, they brought it and kept in their house. The P.W. 1 in his cross-examination in paragraph-9 has categorically admitted that prior to the seizure, he knew that the present petitioner and he had measured the stumps available on the land and was satisfied that those 116 pieces of seized teak wood belong to those 50 nos. of stumps. Thus, it is submitted that in view of such clear admission of the concerned Officer before the Court, now it cannot lie in the mouth of the prosecution that the seized 116 pieces of wood did not relate to the stumps found on the admitted land of the petitioner. Certain documents have also been filed to show that the petitioner repeatedly approached the concerned authority seeking permission which was not granted and the petitioner had to approach this Court for an appropriate order. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sitting over the application made by the petitioner for more than three years and to seize the wood from his house all of a sudden and to book him for a forest offence, can never be justified in the eye of law. It was also submitted that it is the specific case of the petitioner that apprehending loss and theft, the wood was removed from the land to the house and it is also not the case of the prosecution that there was any allegation of theft of teak wood from any other area so as to doubt the claim and ownership of the petitioner.