The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 12:47:56 Order No. 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8909 of 2023 Sebati Nayak Petitioner Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Advocate …. State of Odisha and others -versus-
Legal Reasoning
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 01.08.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 1. 2. Order dated 27th February, 2023 (Annexure-2) passed by learned District Judge, Keonjhar in FAO No.12 of 2022 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby an appeal filed under Section 56 (2-e) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 (for brevity ‘the Act’) filed by the Petitioner, has been dismissed. 3. It is the submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner that as per the prosecution report on 25th April, 2020 when the Forester of Bimala Section was performing patrolling duty along with her staff in Kudbil Reserve Forest at about 8.30 PM, she heard some sound and detected existence a tractor along with trolley loaded with laterite stones within the reserve forest area. It is also alleged that having seen the forest staff, the driver and labourers fled away. The Forester seized the tractor/trolley bearing registration No.OD-06-J-0140/0141 (for brevity ‘the vehicle’) and prepared the seizure list. Thereafter, UD Case No.3T/2020-21 was initiated under Section 56 of the Act. After receipt of offence report from the Forester, the Range Officer, Telkoi conducted enquiry under Rule 4 (2) of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 12:47:56 // 2 // (for brevity ‘Rules’). During enquiry, it was revealed that the vehicle is registered in the name of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the UD Case was converted to OR Case No.85T/2020-21. On completion of enquiry, prosecution report was submitted to the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Keonjhar Forest Division. On receipt of the prosecution report, OR Case No.85T/2020-21 was initiated and the vehicle of the Petitioner was confiscated vide order dated 13th January, 2022. Assailing the said order, the Petitioner preferred FAO No.12 of 2022 and the impugned order was passed on 27th February, 2023 (Annexure-2). 3.1 It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel that the Petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, had no knowledge about the forest offence being committed using her vehicle. He draws attention of this Court to provision of Section 56(2-c) of the Act, which reads as under:- “56.(2-c) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2-b), no order of confiscation under sub-section (2-a) of any tool, rope, chain, .boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in-charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle, in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.” Since the vehicle in question was used to commit the offence without his knowledge or connivance, it should not have been confiscated. It is further submitted that no independent witness was examined in the case. Further, the Driver had no knowledge that laterite stones were being transported from reserve forest area. Though learned District Judge took note of all his contentions but erroneously dismissed the appeal. He Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 12:47:56 // 3 // also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Odisha, reported in (2019) 1 Orissa LR 624. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to release her vehicle. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC submits that the driver of the vehicle was examined as DW-2, who has candidly stated in his evidence that he was looking after the vehicle and business of the Petitioner. The Petitioner herself was also examined as DW-1 and stated that she had authorized the driver to look after the vehicle and do the business. Thus, in a way, the Petitioner and her agent have admitted commission of forest offence. Section 2(g-d) of the Act includes the laterite stone when transported from a forest area is a ‘forest produce’. Thus, neither the Authorized Officer nor the learned District Judge has committed any error in directing to confiscate the vehicle of the Petitioner. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the Petitioner does not dispute the fact of transportation of thirty-five numbers of laterite stones from the forest area. Although a plea is taken that the driver of the vehicle did not have the knowledge that the laterite stones being transported from reserve forest area; that itself cannot be construed that a forest offence has not been committed. The Petitioner and her driver had candidly admitted in their evidence that the driver was authorized to take care of the vehicle and do the business for the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has authorized her driver to take care of the vehicle and do the business, he was acting as an agent of the Petitioner. Thus, knowledge of agent amounts knowledge of the Petitioner Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: Secreatary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 03-Aug-2023 12:47:56 // 4 // as required under Section 56 (2) of the Act. Admittedly, the laterite stones loaded on the tractor/trolley was being transported from forest area, i.e., reserve forest. Thus, it constitute a forest produce in terms of Section 2 (g)(d) of the Act. Thus, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Arun Kumar Sahu (supra) has no application to this case. A plea is taken by the Petitioner to the effect that there was no independent witness to the seizure. Law does not require that seizure of a vehicle and equipments along with forest produce should be done in presence of independent witness. Moreover, the offence so committed at 8.30 PM is in a reserve forest. Thus, no independent witness is expected to be present at the time and place. Thus, submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner holds no good. The Authorized Officer as well as learned District Judge discussing the materials in detail passed reasoned orders. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy Page 4 of 4