Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 279 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Samir Sahoo

2011-05-10

B.K.NAYAK, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2011
ORDER 10.05.2011 — Heard Mr. Anupam Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.N. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2.This writ petition has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 26.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in F.A.O. No. 23/1 of 2009 setting aside the final order of the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Baripada Division passed on 10.12.2008 wherein the vehicle bearing Registration No.WB-33-0356 of the opposite party has been confiscated to the State. 3.Facts of the case are that on 26.8.2007, the Range Officer, Bangriposi Range had informed the Forester of Sirsa regarding illegal procurement and transportation of timbers from border area of Mayurbhanj. Accordingly, the Forester of Sirsa along with his staff stopped the vehicle at Nuagaon Chhak and found the truck of the opposite party was loaded with green Mahua timbers and on being asked, the driver of the vehicle produced T.T. permit in support of such loaded timber. The said T.T. permit was in respect of 19 number of Mahua logs of different sizes. At the time of verification, the driver and other occupants of the vehicle fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the Range Officer, Bangriposi intimated the D.F.O., Baripada for obtaining necessary clarification regarding T.T. permit bearing No.455129 dated 26.8.2007 issued by the Range Officer, Musabani Range of Dhalbhum Forest Division, Jharkhand. The D.F.O., Dhalbhum Division reported that the logs in question loaded in the truck does not belong to the person in whose favour the T.T. permit was issued by the Range Officer, Musabani. Thereafter, the confiscation proceeding was initiated against the vehicle and logs. 4.The case of the opposite party is that the vehicle was transporting 19 numbers of logs of Mahua pieces on hire basis from Musabani Forest Range of Dhalabhum Forest Division to East Medinapur on the strength of the T.T. Permit No.455129 dated 26.8.2007 issued by the Forest Range Officer, Musabani Range after receipt of the loading certificate from the Forester Gudabandha with a passing hammer No.18 dated 26.8.2007 of Dhalbhum Forest Division. When the vehicle reached at Nuagaon Chhak under Sirsa Section it was intercepted by the Forester, Sirsa Section along with two forest guards. When the vehicle reached at Nuagaon Chhak under Sirsa Section it was intercepted by the Forester, Sirsa Section along with two forest guards. The driver produced the T.T. Permit along with the loading certificate and took the vehicle on the next morning to range office campus at Bangiriposi for verification of T.T. permit and the loaded timbers. On 27.8.2007, the forester told the driver that as the permit was written in Hindi and issued by the Range Officer of another State, the D.F.O., Baripada has been reported to consult the D.F.O., Dhalbhum to ascertain the genuineness of the permit and asked the vehicle to wait for 2-3 days with the vehicle. After waiting for three days, on 30.8.2007, the driver left the range office for financial difficulties and again came back on 2.9.2007 and told the owner about the seizure of the vehicle. 5.The Authorized Officer, taking into consideration the evidence available on record adduced by both the parties, has passed the order with a finding that the source of procurement of the logs in question was found to be false as reported by the D.F.O., Dhalbhum Forest Division and the T.T. permit issued by the Range Officer, Musabani Range has been obtained fraudulently. Against the above order, the opposite party preferred F.A.O. before the Additional District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in which the order of confiscation has been set aside and the vehicle in question was directed to be handed over to the opposite party, as the same was not involved in commission of any forest offence. 6.Mr. Anupam Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-petitioner, vehemently contends that the judgment and order of the appellate authority is illegal since the appellate authority, without considering the material available on record, has passed the order setting aside the order of confiscation. The evidence of both the Range Officers are very clear and cogent that the opposite party was involved in commission of forest offence. Therefore, he prays that the order of the appellate authority passed in the F.A.O. may be set aside. 7.Mr. The evidence of both the Range Officers are very clear and cogent that the opposite party was involved in commission of forest offence. Therefore, he prays that the order of the appellate authority passed in the F.A.O. may be set aside. 7.Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, contended that after taking into consideration all the materials available on record, learned appellate authority has rightly come to a conclusion that the offending vehicle of the opposite party was not involved in commission of forest offence and since this is a Certiorari proceeding, there is no scope to appreciate the evidence on record. 8.Perused the records. P.W.8, in his evidence, has stated that the T.T. Permit No.455129 dated 26.8.2007 issued by the Range Officer, Musabani Range of Dhalbhum Forest Division, signature of the then Range Officer, Musabani Range, the loading certificate were genuine and the hammer impression No.18 of Dhalbhum Forest Division put in the document were genuine. All the contents in the T.T. permit were correct and based on official record. He had also identified the certificate of the Range Officer and Forester appearing in the loading certificate. P.W.1 who seized the vehicle and prepared the seizure list could not identify the hammer mark due to darkness. From Ext.4, it appears that 19 pieces of Mahua logs were seized from the vehicle in question. The offence report dated 2.9.2007 (Ext.6) shows that 19 pieces of logs were seized which were in conformity with the particulars given in the T.T. permit but the offence report of the same date (Ext.7) shows that 17 pieces of logs were seized from the vehicle in question, which shows that the seizure list was subsequently tampered with by P.W.1. From the above, it shows that the petitioner-State has not come to this Court with clean hand against the involvement of the vehicle of the opposite party in commission of any forest offence. In other words, there is a discrepancy with regard to the seizure of logs. T.T. permit (Ext.1) shows that it was duly issued in respect of 19 pieces of logs, which were loaded in the truck pursuant to Ext.2, the loading certificate. 9.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in F.A.O. No. 23/1 of 2009. 10.Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 9.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in F.A.O. No. 23/1 of 2009. 10.Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.C. No. 8400 of 2009 is also dismissed. 11.In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, there is no reason to detain the vehicle in question any further. Issue urgent certified copy. Petition dismissed.