ORDER : D. Dash, J. 1. The Petitioner by filing this application has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in impeaching the judgment dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Jajpur in FAO No. 43 of 2015 in the matter of an appeal under Section 56 (2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. By the above order, in the appeal filed by the present petitioner assailing the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Authorized Officer, Cuttack Forest Division in OR Case No. 14 of 2014-15 having been confirmed; the appeal has thus been dismissed. The vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. OR-05-W-7468 belonging to the petitioner with the loaded timbers have been confiscated. The finding of the Authorized Officer that in transportation of the loaded timbers (palm hand sawn sizes) in the truck, forest offences have been committed and the truck has thus been used for commission of the forest offence, has been upheld in the appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the proceeding are as under:- On 11.06.2014, the truck bearing Registration No. OR-05-W-7468 having the load of the palm sizes was proceeding. It was detained by the Foresters and the Guards attached to Byre Forest Range. The driver of the truck on being asked failed to produce any document in support of said transportation of the palm sizes. The forest officials found the palm sizes to be hand sawn and without any hammer mark. On checking, in total 912 numbers of hand sawn palm sizes were found to have been loaded in the truck. So the truck as well as palm size's were seized and the proceeding for confiscation under Section 56 of the Act was initiated. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had engaged his truck under "Tarini Transport" of Jagatpur in the district of Cuttack and due to the illness of the permanent driver during the relevant period, another driver had been temporarily engaged. The truck in question was transporting fertilizer to Khamar and after unloading the fertilizer there, the driver was in search of one load for the down trip. The driver having got an offer for the down trip, informed the petitioner that one Prafulla Kumar Jena wanted to transport the palm sizes from Dhenkanal to Soro in the district of Balasore in his truck in the return trip. The driver having got an offer for the down trip, informed the petitioner that one Prafulla Kumar Jena wanted to transport the palm sizes from Dhenkanal to Soro in the district of Balasore in his truck in the return trip. The petitioner then instructed the driver to verify the papers relating to the palm sizes and directed that only finding the permit for transportation of said timbers, he should allow those to be loaded and transport the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 11.06.2014, the said driver of the truck informed him about the transportation of palm sizes and that the owner of the palm sizes had shown him a permit. It is said that the driver with his little knowledge had found the existence of due permit for such transportation of palm sizes to Soro and that was primarily by placing reliance on the words and believing the owner-cum-loader of the palm sizes in good faith. 4. The Authorized Officer in the enquiry initiated for confiscation of the vehicle and seized palm sizes as provided under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act having recorded the evidence of seven witnesses from the side of the prosecution and the two witnesses from the side of the petitioner who are the petitioner himself and the concerned driver, upon discussion of their evidence has finally returned the finding that forest offence under Section 56 of the Act and under sub-rule (1) and (2) of rule 4 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 punishable under rule 21 of the said rule has been committed by using the said truck. It may be stated here that Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 does neither define any offence nor prescribe any punishment for any such offence. It concerns with the penalty of confiscation of the vehicle etc. used for commission of any forest offence. Similarly, only rule 21 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 is the penal rule prescribing punishment for contravention of rule 4 of said rule in transporting the forest produce other than those excepted under rule 5 of the said rules without the Transit Permit issued by the Authority. used for commission of any forest offence. Similarly, only rule 21 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 is the penal rule prescribing punishment for contravention of rule 4 of said rule in transporting the forest produce other than those excepted under rule 5 of the said rules without the Transit Permit issued by the Authority. The confiscation order having been passed; on being moved the appellate court has negated the contentions raised by the petitioner that no such forest offence/s has been committed by using the truck in question and that on the face on record, it was without the knowledge or connivance of the petitioner or the knowledge or connivance of the agent i.e. the driver and that all such reasonable and necessary precautionary measures in that regard had been taken. Accordingly, the appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed the instant application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation stands that by transportation of the palm sizes by the said truck, forest offence has been committed. It was his submission that although the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer is based on the finding that palm sizes were being illegally transported in the said truck without any authority i.e. the Transit Permit, nowhere in the entire order, it has been indicated in clear terms as to the same whether amounts to commission of offence under rule 21 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 or not. He submitted that the appellate court simply saying that the palm sizes are forest produce as the same comes under the definition of Section 2(j) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, by a cryptic order has dismissed the appeal against without stating as to what offence it amounts to by such transportation. According to him, for one transportation of the palm sizes within the State of Odisha, no transit permit under Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 is required and that is an exempted specie under clause-(j) of sub-rule 1 of rule 5 read with Schedule-III, as finds mention at serial No. 18 of the said rules. He therefore, submitted that the orders of confiscation of the vehicle as well as the palm sizes are vulnerable. 6. He therefore, submitted that the orders of confiscation of the vehicle as well as the palm sizes are vulnerable. 6. Learned counsel for the State did not refute the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that sub-rule 1 of rule 5 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules in its clause-(j) exempts the requirement of transit permit for transportation of certain species as mentioned in Schedule-III in the areas mentioned against each. 7. Keeping in view the submissions made, the order passed by the Authorized Officer as well as the lower appellate Court being gone through; it is seen that neither the Authorized Officer nor the learned District Judge has in clear terms said that by user of the said truck bearing registration No. OR-05-W-7468 which forest offence/s has/have been committed. The Authorized Officer when says that such transportation is without the required Transit Permit, he has not bestowed his attention to the facts as to whether under clause-(j) of sub-rule 1 of rule 5 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 in so far as the timbers which were being transported in the truck, if at all, there was any requirement of Transit Permit. The learned District Judge in one paragraph at the end has assigned all the reasons for disposal of the appeal. Having carefully gone through the said paragraph, this Court finds that the learned District Judge has neither properly approached into the matter nor has examined the matter on hand as to what offence it amounts to by such transportation. The expression in that paragraph are such that this Court is even unable to properly sum it up in saying as to what the appellate court has meant thereby. Therefore, it is felt apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the learned District Judge which run as under:- "On going through the case record, it is found that the driver Prakash Behera and the helper confess their guilty for transporting the said palm timber without any document for which the Forest Officer seized the same. While the proceeding in OR Case No. 14D of 2014-15 was going on before the Authorized Officer neither the driver or its owner (appellant) produce the so called permit in question for transportation of the said palm logs by above truck. While the proceeding in OR Case No. 14D of 2014-15 was going on before the Authorized Officer neither the driver or its owner (appellant) produce the so called permit in question for transportation of the said palm logs by above truck. As discussed above, the palm logs comes under the definition of forest produce and the appellant fails to produce any document or receipt to prove that the said palm logs were used logs and brought from private land. Hence a presumption can be drawn that the said 912 pieces of palm had sawn sizes came under forest produce and the same were illegally possessed and transported by the truck in question without valid permit. So this Court did not find any illegality and impropriety in the order passed by the Authorized Officer by confiscating the truck in question. The order of confiscation of the offending vehicle stands to reason and needs no interference. Hence, it is ordered." The above paragraph reveals that the appellate court has not at all applied his mind to the matter and having confused the matter even is not in a position to ascertain that in the factual settings of the case what finding is necessary for the imposition of extreme penalty of the confiscation of the vehicle. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the palm sizes were being transported in the truck from Parjanga in the district of Dhenkanal to Soro in the district of Balasore i.e. within the State. Rule 5 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 provides the list of cases where no transit permit under the rule-4 is required. Rule-4 says that except those cases described under rule-5, transit permit stands as the necessity for the purpose of transportation of forest produce. Clause-(j) of sub-rule-1 of rule-5 provides that no transit permit shall be required to cover the transit of timber and firewood obtained from those species mentioned against each. Under Sl. No. 18 of Schedule-III, the Palm Trees (Borassus flabellifer) finds mention as an exempted specie for its transportation in the State. So, there has been no commission of forest offence in transporting the palm sizes without Transit Permit under the Odisha Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 and thus there cannot be any finding that there has been contravention of the provision of rule 4 of the said Rules. 9. So, there has been no commission of forest offence in transporting the palm sizes without Transit Permit under the Odisha Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 and thus there cannot be any finding that there has been contravention of the provision of rule 4 of the said Rules. 9. For the aforesaid, this Court even accepting the prosecution case in entirety, finds that the truck in question has not been used in commission of any such forest offences as for the transportation of palm sizes within the state, no such transit permit under the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 was then required. The Authorized Officer as well as the learned District Judge are thus found to have fallen in error in directing the confiscation of the truck as well as palm sizes carried therein Accordingly, it is held that the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jajpur in FAO No. 43 of 2015 as well as the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Authorized Officer, Cuttack Forest Division in OR Case No. 14D of 2014-15 are unsustainable, which are hereby set aside. 10. In the result, the application stands allowed. The truck bearing registration No. OR-05W-7468 along with the palm sizes seized in connection with OR Case No. 14D of 2014-15 be forthwith released in favour of the petitioner.