STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR BARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Orissa and its functionaries, being the petitioners, have filed this application seeking to quash judgment dated 12.12.2011 passed in FAO No.07 of 2011 by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal vide Annexure-2 reversing the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO, Dhenkanal Forest Division, Dhenkanal in OR Case No.80 KE of 2009-10 and directing release of the seized truck bearing registration no.OR/04/D-6551 in favour of its owner forthwith.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that on 11.02.2010 at about 9.00 P.M., while the Range Officer, Kamakhyanagar East Range, along with his staff, on getting a confidential information regarding illegal transportation of timbers from Kankadahad forest to Sukinda, was waiting for detection of the same at Batagaon chhaka, at about 3.30 A.M. night one vehicle came from Kankahad side. When the Range Officer signaled to stop the vehicle, the driver stopped it before 50 ft. ahead. Thereafter, when the staff rushed towards the vehicle, some occupants and the driver of the vehicle went away from the spot and due to night, they could not catch hold them. During checking by the staff, it was found that the said vehicle (truck bearing registration no. OR/04/D-6551, having duplicate number plate bearing registration No. OR 19-D-7482) was loaded with 28 nos. of teak logs measuring about 3.1945 cum. On demand/interrogation, the persons sitting inside the vehicle could not be able to produce any valid document or authority in support of transportation of the timbers and confessed their guilty and admitted that the owner and driver of the seized vehicle fled away from the spot before arrival of the forest staff. On the spot, forest guard seized the vehicle, along with the timbers loaded, and prepared a seizure list. After preliminary inquiry by the forest guard, report was submitted before the Range Officer, who submitted necessary papers before the A.O.- cum-DFO, Dhenkanal Division for initiation of a confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to "Act, 1972") in respect of the offending vehicle, as it was found to be involved in commission of a forest offence.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the inquiry as contemplated under Rule-4 of Rules, 1980 has no application to the confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Act, 1972. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge to the extent that the provisions contained under Rule-4 of Rules, 1980, having not been carried out, the order of confiscation suffers from jurisdictional error, is absolutely an error apparent on the face of record. It is further contended that even if there is no evidence that the timbers were cut and removed from Kankadahad Forest, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that seizure of timber does not require to be made in presence of the independent witnesses, thereby, the strict rule of evidence is not applicable to the confiscation proceeding. As such, in a proceeding under Section 56 of the Act, 1972, the department has to simply show prima facie material indicating involvement of concerned vehicle in the forest offence. Thereby, the learned District Judge committed error apparent on the face of record in interfering with the findings of the Authorized Officer and also reversing the same in the order impugned. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Anatha Bandhu Mandal v. State of Orissa, 2015 2 OrissaLR 1; Guru Charan Singh v. State of Orissa, 2005 Supp OrissaLR 921; Gurudev Singh Rai v. Authorized Officer, 1992 1 OrissaLR 305; and Malatilata Samal v. State of Orissa, 2002 2 OrissaLR 216.