JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition involves a challenge to the judgment and order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nuapada in Misc. Judl. Appeal No.5/2008 confirming the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Confiscation Proceeding in O.R. No.02Kh of 2006-07 C.P. No.6 of 2006-07. 2. Short background involving the case is that on receipt of information from reliable source, concerned Forest Guard proceeded towards Bichhinapali (Nehena) Village and performed night patrolling duty on 16.4.2006 at about 10 p.m. Finding moving of a dumper truck bearing Regn. No.OSS-1461, he stopped the truck/dumper, checked, verified and found that 16 numbers of Teak logs equivalent to 0.5124 Cu.M. were loaded along with Graphite in the truck. The Forest Guard finding forest produce loaded in the truck asked the driver to produce valid permit in relation to the loaded Teak logs, the driver failing to produce any document told the Forest Guard that the forest produces were loaded by one Hero Kumar Bag and he had no valid permit for the said transportation. Consequently, the vehicle and the forest materials were taken into custody along with the truck dumper. The truck and the driver along with the materials were brought to the Range Office compound. Consequently, OR No.2kh of 2006-07 was registered for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 37 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 read with Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The case was handed over to the Forester of Khariar Section with intimation of seizure to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khariar and also to the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division by the Range Officer, Khariar Range. The Forester on preliminary enquiry submitted his enquiry report to the Range Officer. Thereafter the Range Officer submitted the case record along with his supervisory enquiry report, vide Memo No.528 dated 24.7.2006 for necessary trial of the case under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act to the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Forest Division. As the case was required to be tried under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 for violation of Rules 4 & 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, the trial was undertaken by the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Division. As the case was required to be tried under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 for violation of Rules 4 & 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, the trial was undertaken by the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Division. On notice in the Forest Offence Case, the owner appeared and filed show cause. This apart, the owner was also examined as a witness and cross-examined. Similarly, the Forest Department also produced copy of the report and copies of the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry. This apart the Forest Department also examined their witnesses and produced their documents in satisfaction of their case. Based on the materials available on record and the pleadings of the respective parties, the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Division by final order dated 17.11.2008 concluded the proceeding observing that there has been commitance of forest offence under Section 33 of the Orissa Forest Act and Rules 4 & 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 with involvement of truck dumper bearing Regn. No.OSS-1461 with full knowledge and consent of the driver in-charge of the vehicle and accordingly directed for confiscation of the truck/dumper along with 16 numbers of green Teak logs to be confiscated to State releasing thereby the Graphite loaded with due permission in the truck/dumper involved in favour of the rightful owner further also recommended the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khariar for trial involving Hero Kumar Bag and the driver for appropriate action for their criminal involvement in the offence. On Appeal, the Appellate Authority hearing the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, vide his judgment dated 28.1.2010 dismissed the Appeal while confirming the order passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Division. 3. On Appeal, the Appellate Authority hearing the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, vide his judgment dated 28.1.2010 dismissed the Appeal while confirming the order passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Division. 3. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Sri K.K.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners on reiteration of the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal contended that the impugned judgment and order suffer on account of the following :- (I) Even though the Authorised Officer in the order dated 17.11.2008 mentioned that he has perused the statement of twelve persons recorded in the confiscation proceeding but in fact as per the order-sheet of the proceeding file, it appears, there has been recording of statement of five witnesses only and alleged that the impugned order suffers on account of such wrong recording. There is appreciation that there might be utilization of statement of seven persons being manufactured subsequently and utilised against the petitioners to their prejudice. (II) The judgment impugned also suffers on account of non-consideration of this ground by the Appellate Authority. (III) There is no report in Form No.1 submitted by the Forester concerned after conducting preliminary enquiry. (IV) The Authorised Officer should have held the proceeding in terms of mandatory provision of Rule 4(2) of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980. (V) Non-compliance of the mandatory provision makes the proceeding suffered and has drawn the support of the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. Vrs. Govind Joti Chavare & others, (1975) AIR SC 915 and Rabinarayan Sahu vrs. Forest Range Officer of Soroda Range & others, (2008) 2 OrissaLR 592. (VI) The judgment and order also suffer for non-consideration of the statements of Dukhu Dip and Bhajaman Majhi, who have categorically stated that the wood materials were loaded in the dumper on being threatened by Hero Kumar Bag. (VII) For no sufficient material statement of Hero Kumar Bag on payment of Rs.300/- to the driver for transportation of the logs so seized could not have been taken into account. (VIII) The judgment and order impugned also suffer on account of perversity as well as non-consideration of vital contradictions. (IX) The judgment and order are based on interested witnesses. (VII) For no sufficient material statement of Hero Kumar Bag on payment of Rs.300/- to the driver for transportation of the logs so seized could not have been taken into account. (VIII) The judgment and order impugned also suffer on account of perversity as well as non-consideration of vital contradictions. (IX) The judgment and order are based on interested witnesses. (X) There has been no material to establish that the vehicle involved in the offence had the consent of the owner. The owner has neither been noticed nor was any enquiry conducted to know the name of the owner of the vehicle before confiscating the vehicle. There has been no material that the offence has been committed with knowledge and consent of the driver. (XI) The judgment and order also suffer for not taking into consideration the offence involved a material worth paltry sum of Rs.3000/-. (XII) The judgment and order also suffer for violation of principle of natural justice. (XIII) The fact that the driver has taken all precautions for avoiding the transportation and that the transportation was under a threat have not been properly viewed either by the Assistant Conservator of Forest or the Additional District Judge. (XIV) The fact that the action involved was not intentional and could not be properly viewed either by the Original Authority or the Appellate Authority. (XV) There has been non-consideration of judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners before both the forums. (XVI) Since the finding of the Authorised Officer that Hero Kumar Bag was transporting the alleged forest produce without valid permit, there was no occasion on the part of the Appellate Authority to confirm the view of the Authorised Officer for confiscation of the vehicle involved. (XVII) Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that the finding on availability of Form No.1 by the Appellate Authority in paragraph-9 is perverse and not borne out from the record. 4. Sri Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners further taking this Court to two decisions one from the Hon'ble apex Court in Ramchandra Keshab Adke (Dead) by Lrs. Vrs. Govind Joti Chavare & others, (1975) AIR SC 915 and other of this Court in Rabinarayan Sahu vrs. Forest Range Officer of Soroda Range & others, (2008) 2 OrissaLR 592 submitted that for the application of the above decisions to the case of the petitioners, the writ petition should succeed. 5. Vrs. Govind Joti Chavare & others, (1975) AIR SC 915 and other of this Court in Rabinarayan Sahu vrs. Forest Range Officer of Soroda Range & others, (2008) 2 OrissaLR 592 submitted that for the application of the above decisions to the case of the petitioners, the writ petition should succeed. 5. Sri U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand producing the record involving the case and taking this Court to the details of documents including the reports at different stages, Form No.1 and other forms available on record, further taking this Court to the statement recorded during continuance of the proceeding before the Authorised Officer, the statements recorded during preliminary investigation as well as initial investigation by the Forester and the subsequent investigation by the Forest Ranger, the report from the concerned Police Station regarding non-submission of any F.I.R. as claimed by the owner, the contradictions in the statement of the witnesses produced by the owner, the substance available from the statement produced by the Forest Authorities, non-examination of the driver, the most vital witness, non-production of F.I.R., on which much reliance has been placed by the owner involving the allegation of threat to the driver of the vehicle by the owner, the discussions of the A.C.F. and the A.D.J. involving the original proceeding and the appeal proceeding contended that there is no infirmity in either of the orders and both the orders as well as the judgment impugned herein are well supported with the reasoning leaving any scope for interfering in the same. Taking this Court to the materials available on record, the observations of both the original authority as well as the appellate authority, Sri U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties while opposing each of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to justify both the judgment and order. Sri Sahoo taking this Court to the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the discussions in both the decisions rather claimed that the decisions have support to the case of the opposite parties. Sri U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel ultimately submitted that for the nature of offence in the event there is interference in such order, situation will add to increase in such type of offence. 6. Sri U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel ultimately submitted that for the nature of offence in the event there is interference in such order, situation will add to increase in such type of offence. 6. Taking into account the submissions made by both the Counsel for respective parties and the points raised herein in challenging the judgment and order involved herein, this Court from the materials available on record finds, the date of occurrence is 16.4.2006. The story involved goes to show that the Forester while remaining in patrol duty stopped the vehicle involved at 10 P.M. on 16.4.2006, checking the vehicle found 16 numbers of Teak logs loaded along with Graphite asking the driver to produce valid permit, the driver failed in producing the same. The driver with regard to loaded Teak logs told to the Forest Guard that the logs were loaded by Hero Kumar Bag, who was also sitting in the truck. For non-production of valid permit either by the driver or Hero Kumar Bag, the Forest Guard prepared the seizure list obtaining signature of the driver and submitted the seized materials with the vehicle to the Range Office along with report is prepared during process of investigation at his level. The Range Officer apart from intimating the fact to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khariar and the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division submitted the case record along with the supervisory enquiry report and the enquiry report of the Range Officer to the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., who ultimately registered the forest offence case, tried under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act for violation of offence under Rules 4 & 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. The A.C.F. on registration of the case issued notice to Bipin Nayak, driver of the seized truck and Ramesh Kumar Mishra, General Manager of Agrawal Graphite Industries, the owner/custodian of the vehicle involved. The A.C.F. on registration of the case issued notice to Bipin Nayak, driver of the seized truck and Ramesh Kumar Mishra, General Manager of Agrawal Graphite Industries, the owner/custodian of the vehicle involved. It is at this stage, looking to the allegation of Sri Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been non-compliance of provision of law and non-compliance of principle of natural justice, this Court from the provision under the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 finds, the proceeding being followed in the matter of forest offence involving Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules and also finds, there is a clear bar for transportation of item materials classified except the items notified in Rule 5 therein and all other forest produce removal of which requires a transit permit. 7. Now coming to the enquiry required involving any forest offence being committed under the provision of 1980 Rules, the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 requires an enquiry in terms of Rule 4, which reads as follows :- "4.Enquiry-(1) When a forest offence is detected, a preliminary enquiry may be held by a Forester in charge of the section who shall forward his enquiry report along with the report in Form No.1 to the Range Officer concerned, soon after his preliminary enquiry is completed. Provided that no enquiry may be held by any such Officer if the accused who has committed a forest offence other than an offence under Section 66 or Section 67 of the Act agrees, and files a petition to that effect in Form No.IV to get the offence compounded under Section 72 of the Act and to pay compensation there for. Such application in Form No.IV shall also form a part of the case record. (2) An enquiry into the forest offence shall thereafter be held by an officer not below the rank of a Range Officer. Such application in Form No.IV shall also form a part of the case record. (2) An enquiry into the forest offence shall thereafter be held by an officer not below the rank of a Range Officer. (3) The enquiry report together with the case record shall be submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer by the Range Officer in all cases in which the Divisional Forest Officer is not competent to compound under Rule 7 and where the accused persons do not opt to compound in the offence." Reading the aforesaid Rule, it appears, when the forest offence is detected, a preliminary enquiry may be held by the Forester and he has to forward his enquiry report along with Form No.1 and such format is very much available in the record. Secondly, the preliminary enquiry by the Forest Authority, by enquiring into the forest offence by an Officer not below the rank of Range Officer, which is also being complied with as per the records available and disclosure in the order of the Authorised Officer and the third criteria is the enquiry report together with the case record shall be submitted to the D.F.O. by the Range Officer. For the notification, the power of the D.F.O. has also been vested in the Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F. It is for the above, this Court finds, there is no violation of the statutory provision involving the case. 8. Coming to the question of natural justice, from the complain of natural justice as recorded earlier, this Court finds, the Forester has recorded the statement of the driver, Bipin Nayak and Hero Kumar Bag being the custodian of the wood being transported in the vehicle involved and other witnesses available on spot. This apart, after the case is forwarded to the A.C.F., it also appears, notices have been issued to Bipin Nayak, the driver and Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the General Manager. The record also goes to show that Bipin Nayak, the driver even though made a submission by way of affidavit to the show cause notice but was not produced for his examination to testify his version particularly with the materials so seized were transported under the threat of Hero Kumar Bag. The record also goes to show that Bipin Nayak, the driver even though made a submission by way of affidavit to the show cause notice but was not produced for his examination to testify his version particularly with the materials so seized were transported under the threat of Hero Kumar Bag. This Court here also finds, even though the driver in the earlier statement and show case made an allegation that he was threatened to be killed on his failure to transport the materials and on this, he has submitted an F.I.R., this Court observes, neither the driver appeared as a witness on behalf of the owner to testify this nor the owner could be able to file a copy of the F.I.R. so claimed by the owner as well as the driver. On the contrary, taking into account the show cause response by the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle, particularly on the driver's lodging an F.I.R., the Forest Authority attempted to get a response on the F.I.R. form the concerned Police Station and the concerned Police Station in writing informed the forest officials that there has been no lodging of any such F.I.R., and therefore, no copy of the F.I.R. was surfaced to rescue the owner as well as the driver and to escape them from the offence involved. Even though there have been some statements of some witnesses otherwise claiming to be present and to have seen Hero Kumar Bag threatening the driver but for non-availability of copy of the F.I.R., the person lodging the F.I.R. and the response of the Police-Station submitting that there has been no lodging of F.I.R. in fact made the witnesses produced by the owner to establish their claim of involvement of threatening by Hero Kumar Bag could not be trustworthy and has been rightly disbelieved by the Authorised Officer and has been correctly appreciated by the Additional District Judge in Appeal. 9. 9. Coming to the material relied on by the Authorised Officer in coming to his conclusion and finding a case against the driver as well as the owner, the impugned judgment and order of the Authorised Officer disclose that the Authorised Officer has taken into account the followings :- "(i) The detailed case records of the O.R. Case No.2kh of 2006-07 submitted vide Memo No.528 dt.24.7.2006 of the Range Officer, Khariar Range along with supervisory enquiry note dated 23.7.2006. (ii) Reply to show cause notice of Sri Bipin Nayak driver of the seized vehicle dated 26.8.2006. (iii) Reply to show cause notice of Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, GM, Agrawal Graphite Industries, Mundapala, P/O-Gandabaheli, P/S-Sinapali, Dist-Nuapada. (iv) Statement of Sri Dukhu Dip of Gandabaheli witness before the A.O. on dt.27.9.2006. (v) Statement and cross-examination of Sri Bansilal Tandi of Gandanbaheli on dated 27.9.2006. (vi) Statement and cross-examination of Sri Teku Sagaria of Gandabaheli on dt.18.10.2006. (vii) Statement of Sri Bhajaman Majhi, before the A.O. on dt.27.9.2006. (viii) Statement and cross-examination of Sri Khetramohan Bag before the A.O. on dt.27.9.2006. (ix) Statement of Sri Hero Kumar Bag, accused before the A.O. on dt.27.9.2006. (x) Statement of Sri Khageswar Majhi, F.G. (Seizing Officer) before the A.O. on dt.18.10.2006. (xi) Statement of Sri Dilip Singh Majhi, witness before the A.O. on dt.7.11.2006. (xii) Statement of Sri Chandra Majhi, witness before the A.O. on dt.7.11.2006. (xiii) Statement and cross-examination of Md.Azimuddin, Forestor (Enquiring Officer) before the A.O. on dated 7.2.2007. (xiv) Statement of Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, General Manager, Agrawal Graphite Industries, Mundapala before the A.O. on dt.7.8.2007. (xv) Statement and cross-examination of Sri R.K.Mohanty, F/R, Ext. Range Officer, Khariar Range (Supervising Officer) before the A.O. Khariar Division on dt.5.9.2007. (xvi) Reply of Officer in charge Khariar Police Station vide his D.R. No.1899 dated 27.9.2008 addressed to Authorised Officer-cum-A.C.F., Khariar Forest Division." From the above, this Court finds, not only there has been examination of witnesses from the side of the Forest Officials and cross-examination of such witnesses by the petitioners but there has been also production of some witnesses by the owner and cross-examination of them, except the owner failing to produce the driver and failing to produce any material to establish lodging of F.I.R. so claimed, here it appears, the owner miserably failed in establishing its main thrust of contest. This apart, there has been also consideration of the response to show cause filed by both the driver, Bipin Nayak as well as the owner, Ramesh Kumar Mishra. Looking to the response to show cause by the driver appearing in the case record also appearing at Annexure-2 to the writ petition, this Court finds, even though the response to show cause could be filed through the driver and that too establishing the signature of the deponent to be an illiterate one whereas the affidavit is in English further it is strange to note that the owner in spite of filing a response to the show cause of the driver failing to produce the driver, the most vital witness to establish that the transportation was made under the threat of killing. At this stage, this Court finds, the allegation that the petitioners have not been provided with natural justice has no foundation. At this stage, taking into account the document filed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition where the owner claiming to be an admission of Hero Kumar Bag to have used force and threat for transportation of the materials but surprisingly the letter so produced nowhere discloses his using force. While the same admission letter though contains the admission of the driver regarding use of force by Hero Kumar Bag though contains the signature of Bipin, the driver, this Court finds, all other documents involving Bipin though appears to have his signature in local language involving but surprisingly this admission letter appears to have contained English signature of the driver. It is again to be taken note that if such an admission letter was available, nothing prevented the owner to produce the driver to at least establish such claim by way of evidence. For the different signature of the Driver at different levels, it is also not known as to which document shall be taken into account and which document shall not be accepted. Further non-production of Driver again leaves no substance in it. 10. For the different signature of the Driver at different levels, it is also not known as to which document shall be taken into account and which document shall not be accepted. Further non-production of Driver again leaves no substance in it. 10. Coming to the document at Annexure-5 to the writ petition, this Court finds, lodging of F.I.R., vide Annexure-5 has been flatly denied by the concerned Police Station in response to a query on the progress and outcome of the F.I.R. through its letter no.1899 dated 27.9.2008 indicating therein that there is no lodging of any such F.I.R. This Court, therefore, observes, the petitioners though have taken a particular defence but has miserably failed in establishing such defence, on other hand, there was sufficient material to establish the involvement of the driver of the vehicle and consequent involvement of the owner involving the vehicle and the offence, the owner is bound to suffer for the offence involved. This Court, therefore, in answering the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein observes, all grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no substance. 11. Going through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds, for the change in the facts and situations involving the case at hand, both the decisions have no support to the case of the petitioners. For the above, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in either the judgment and/or the order involved herein requiring any interference in the same. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed for having no ground. No cost.