JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. - Both the writ petitions arise out of a confiscation proceeding initiated under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 vide O.R. Case No.18 of 2008-2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.9.2008, the forest staff headed by the Forester detected one Tractor loaded with some teak logs on the P.W.D. road from Sumandal-Vegiput near Bhaliaghar while patrolling in night. The driver of the Tractor Siba Swain could not produce any document in support of transportation of the said logs on demand of the Forester. One Rabindra Pradhan, who was escorting the aforesaid Tractor arrived in a motorcycle and admitted that his father is the owner of the said Tractor and it was used for transportation of twelve teak logs from village Kumbhargaon. He also could not produce any document in support of such transportation. Therefore, the Forester seized the Tractor bearing Registration No.OR-07-3459, The Trolley bearing Registration No.OR-O7-B-3460 and the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.OR-07-P-9446 along with the teak logs measuring 61.91 Cfts. A case was registered for commission of offence under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and also for violation of Rule 4 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to the driver of the Tractor Siba Swain as well as to the son of the owner, namely, Rabindra Pradhan. Thereafter an offence report was prepared and confiscation proceeding bearing O.R. Case No.18 of 2008-2009 of Khallikote Range was started before the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Berhampur Division, Berhampur. The Authorised Officer by order dated 18.2.2010 directed confiscation of the Tractor, Trolley and the Motorcycle as well the timber seized while being transported. The said order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer was challenged in appeal by the said Rabindra Pradhan, Siba Swain and the father of Rabindra Pradhan in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur. By judgment and order dated 15.7.2011, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur allowed the appeal. Challenging the order of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, the State has filed W.P.(C) No.32387 of 2011. The owner of the vehicle, namely, Bhaiga Pradhan has filed W.P.(C) No.32031 of 2011 for release of the seized articles on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge. Challenging the order of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, the State has filed W.P.(C) No.32387 of 2011. The owner of the vehicle, namely, Bhaiga Pradhan has filed W.P.(C) No.32031 of 2011 for release of the seized articles on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the order of the Authorised Officer as well as the order of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge in appeal, they were heard together and are disposed of in a common order, 3. The learned counsel for the State challenged the impugned order passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge in appeal on the ground that the procedure prescribed under law for search, seizure of the offending vehicle carrying timber without the required permits had been followed by the forest officials and there was no irregularity in adopting such procedure. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules had also been followed but the learned 2nd Additional District Judge without verifying the records properly held that the mandatory provision contained in the said Rule had not been followed by the Range Officer. According to the learned counsel for the State, the Range Officer had conducted an enquiry independently and submitted a report. Therefore, the finding of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge that the said provision had been contravened is an error of record. 4. The learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle submitted that the Authorised Officer failed to appreciate the evidence available on record which clearly shows that the vehicle had been used for commission of the forest offence without the knowledge and connivance of the owner and the owner had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use of the vehicle. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 4 (2) of the 1980 Rule is mandatory but was not followed by the Range Officer and therefore, the entire confiscation proceeding is vitiated. 5. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 4 (2) of the 1980 Rule is mandatory but was not followed by the Range Officer and therefore, the entire confiscation proceeding is vitiated. 5. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge in appeal on examination of the record found that the Department has not been able to prove the search and seizure properly in order to establish that the vehicle was in fact involved in transportation of forest produce and hence the evidence which were brought before the learned Authorised Officer was not sufficient to establish that the vehicles were involved in commission of any forest offence. It was also held in appeal that though Rule 4(2) of the 1980 Rules makes it mandatory on the part of the Range Officer to conduct an enquiry independently, there was nothing on record to show that the Range Officer had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the Authorised Officer before initiation of the proceeding. 6. On careful examination of the orders passed by the Authorised Officer in the confiscation proceeding as well as the order passed by the appellate authority, we find that though the Authorised Officer found that the vehicles in question had been used for commission of the forest offence with the knowledge of the owner, on examination of the evidence adduced before the Authorised Officer, the appellate authority held that the prosecution had not been able to prove that the alleged forest offence had been committed with the knowledge and connivance of the owner of the vehicles. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority on appreciation of evidence and this Court in a writ petition has hardly any jurisdiction to disturb the said finding of fact unless it is proved that such finding is perverse and without any evidence to support the same. From the discussions made by the appellate authority in paragraphs-5 and 6 of the impugned judgment, we find that the Forester who seized the vehicles and the timber was examined as P.W.1 and in cross-examination he stated that even though a tour diary is maintained with regard to their patrolling duty, the relevant tour diary in which the entry was made in relation to the said seizure on 26.9.2008 had been handed over to the Range Officer but the same was not seized. He also could not say as to whether his own statement was recorded by the Range Officer or not. Apart from the above, the appellate authority also found that the original documents relating to the case were not produced by the Department and Xerox copies were produced. No independent witness had been examined by the Department. On analysis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the owner though the appellate authority found that any person found in possession of any forest produce within the limits of any reserved forest, shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be guilty of removing or as the case may be, transporting such forest produce from the reserved forest without authority, such a presumption cannot dispense with the proof of search and seizure as is required to be discharged by the Department through acceptable evidence. This being a finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority on examination of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court has hardly any scope to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. So far as non-compliance of Rule 4(2) of the 1980 Rules is concerned, the appellate authority specifically found that no document had been produced before him to show that the Range Officer had independently conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the Authorised Officer. The learned counsel for the State produced the record of the confiscation proceeding and submitted that the Range Officer had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the Authorised Officer but the same was not noticed by the appellate authority and accordingly the finding recorded, by the appellate authority is an error of record. On examination of the record produced by the learned counsel for the State, we find that a report was prepared by the Forest Range Officer and had been produced before the Authorised Officer and proved as Ext. 'C'. The said document is a xerox copy of the original. But surprising the original report has not been produced before the Authorised offieer. Though the appellate authority has recorded a finding that the said document was not available in the record, taking exception to filing of Xerox copies by the appellate authority cannot be faulted. The report appears to have been prepared on a paper meant to record the statement of the accused. Though the appellate authority has recorded a finding that the said document was not available in the record, taking exception to filing of Xerox copies by the appellate authority cannot be faulted. The report appears to have been prepared on a paper meant to record the statement of the accused. From the said report also it appears that the Forest Range Officer had recorded the statement of the owner of the vehicles, namely, Bhaiga Pradhan. It is clear from the said report that the Range Officer had not examined the forest officials who caused the seizure of the vehicles as well as the timber nor he examined the driver of the Tractor. Rule 4 (2) of the 1980 Rules does not mandate such an enquiry to be conducted by the Forest Range Officer. We are, therefore, of the view that Rule 4 (2) of the 1980 Rules has also not been followed in the manner prescribed under the Rule. 8. In view of the above findings, we find no merit in W.P.(C) No.32387 of 2011 filed by the State and accordingly dismiss the same, Consequently we allow W.P.(C) No.32031 of 2011 filed by the owner of the vehicles and direct the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Berhampur Division, Berhampur to immediately comply with the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur in F.A.O. No.23 of 2011 preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. I agree. Appeal dismissed.