Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 86 (ORI)

Ashok Kumar Das v. State of Orissa

2005-01-28

P.K.TRIPATHY, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2005
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Misc. Appeal No.22 of 2002 upholding the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Satkosia Wildlife Division, Angul in C.P. Case No.15 of 2001-2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle (Maruti Van) bearing regis¬tration No. WNF 5792. On 17.12.2001 the said vehicle was seized by the forest officials along with timbers for violation of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Pro¬duce Transit Rules, 1980. A proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972was initiated vide C.P. Case No.15 of 2001-2002 on the file of the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Angul, who by order dated 13.09.2002 confiscated the vehicle as also the timbers to the State. Against that order, the petitioner preferred Misc.Appeal No.22 of 2002 before the District & Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, who confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 27.11.2003. Hence this writ petition. 3. In the above confiscation proceeding the petitioner filed his show cause denying his knowledge regarding transporta¬tion of forest produce in his vehicle. He has also taken a stand that he had specifically cautioned his driver not to carry any forest produce in the vehicle. But on the occurrence day, as deposed by the driver in his evidence, while the vehicle was returning from Regada with the family members of the petitioner, near village Mahigada some unknown anti socials detained the vehicle and compelled the driver of the vehicle to carry some timbers. On his refusal, they abused and threatened him with dire consequences by putting a Bhujali on his neck. The driver, being apprehensive of his life, remained silent and allowed the timbers to be loaded in the vehicle. Thereafter, near Jilinda Chhak, the forest officials detained the vehicle and seized it along with the timbers, on the failure of the driver to produce any permit for transportation of such timbers. Considering the show cause and the evidence available on record, the Authorized Officer confiscated the timbers as well as the vehicle. 4. Thereafter, near Jilinda Chhak, the forest officials detained the vehicle and seized it along with the timbers, on the failure of the driver to produce any permit for transportation of such timbers. Considering the show cause and the evidence available on record, the Authorized Officer confiscated the timbers as well as the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the owner had no knowledge regarding the incident and previously also instructed the driver not to carry any forest produce. But the driver, due to threat at the point of Bhujali loaded the timbers. He also submits that the learned Sessions Judge should have taken into consideration the deposition of the driver where he narrated the entire story. At the time of seizure of the vehicle, the owner was not present and the circumstances were beyond the control of the driver. He further submits that no chance was given to cross-examine the forest officials. 5. Considering the submissions made and after going through the records, we do not find any material with regard to threat. No report has also been lodged before the police. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the driver did not do so. The petitioner to substantiate his stand has examined no independent witness. Rather, the driver in his statement has admitted transportation of timbers. It also reveals from the record of the Authorised Officer that the forest officials of Athgarh for violation of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules had earlier seized the vehicle. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order of confis¬cation passed by the Authorised Officer and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.