Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8791 of 2019 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Maheswar Sahoo …. Petitioner (s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dhruba Ch. Rout, Adv. Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-14.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the order of confiscation dated 21.07.2018 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Athagarh in O.R. Case No.91(B)17-18 and the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Athagarh in FAO No.07 of 2018, and to release the Ashok Leyland Pick-up Van (Reg. No. OD05V 4382) from seizure. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (i) The petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland Pick-up Van (Reg. No. OD05V 4382) which was confiscated by the Authorized Officer, Athagarh on 21.07.2018; confiscation order later confirmed by ADJ, Athagarh on 01.03.2019 in F.A.O. No. 7/2018. (ii) On 07.11.2017, forest officials during patrolling found the vehicle parked and loaded with 30 Sala ballahs, 5 Sishu ballahs, and xeroxed vehicle documents; the vehicle was seized by Forester, Gopalpur Section. (iii) DFO, Athagarh registered a forest offence report under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and issued notice to the petitioner. Prosecution examined seizure witnesses, while petitioner led defence evidence including the driver, Gram Panchayat Sarapanch, and VSS President. (iv) Prosecution witnesses stated the vehicle was found loaded with forest produce without any transit permit; defence witnesses stated the ballahs belonged to the village committee since 2014 and were being shifted for local puja purposes. (v) Authorized Officer accepted seizure witnesses’ version, ordered confiscation; Appellate Court dismissed appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Confiscation is invalid as the Authorized Officer failed to record proper satisfaction or “reason to believe” under Section 56(2)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act and without holding enquiry under Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules. (ii) The vehicle was stationary at the time of seizure, not proved to be used in transporting forest produce; no evidence of removal from forest land. Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 (iii) Prosecution witnesses gave contradictory versions (driver absent vs driver fled) and failed to establish source of seized ballahs or their character as “forest produce.” (iv) Defence evidence (driver and villagers) consistently stated that the ballahs were old, belonged to local committees, and were forcefully loaded for community use. (v) Authorized Officer and Appellate Court ignored defence evidence and relied only on official seizure witnesses; such reliance is perverse. (vi) Without proving forest origin or illegal transit, the confiscation order is unsustainable; confiscation outcome is vulnerable and liable to be III. 4. (i) quashed. JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE LOWER COURT: The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Authorized Officer, Athagarh confiscated the Ashok Leyland Pick- up Van (OD-05-V-4382) and the forest produce on 21.07.2018; the appellant-owner challenged the order before the lower appellate court. (ii) Forest officials (PWs 1–6) consistently deposed that on 07.11.2017 at about 8 p.m., while on patrolling duty, they found the vehicle parked/coming on the PMGSY road, loaded with 30 Sal ballahs and 5 Sisoo phalis; the driver fled from the spot; no outsider was present; the vehicle carried no transit permit. (iii) The owner (DW-5) claimed he was in Delhi for treatment at the relevant time and had instructed his driver not to misuse the vehicle; the driver (DW-1) and other defence witnesses (DW-2 to DW-4) deposed that the villagers forcibly loaded the wooden poles belonging to the Puja Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 Committee, which had been collected after the 2014 cyclone and earlier used for Durga Puja. (iv) The court disbelieved the defence version, noting absence of supporting documents: no treatment papers proving the owner’s stay in Delhi, no FIR lodged regarding forcible loading, no proof that DW-1 was engaged as driver or paid salary, and no record showing the poles were with the village committee. (v) The court held that PWs 1–5 were independent public officials with no enmity towards the owner; their testimony of seizure and flight of driver was credible; no reason existed for false implication. (vi) The court observed that defence evidence was only oral and unsupported by documentary proof; precaution against misuse of the vehicle was not established; the plea of absence of knowledge or connivance was not proved. (vii) On appreciation of evidence, the court found no illegality or perversity in the confiscation order of the Authorized Officer; concluded the vehicle was used for commission of forest offence; rejected the appellant’s contentions. (viii) The appeal was dismissed on contest, holding the confiscation legal, justified, and not liable to be set aside. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the documents placed before this Court. Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 empowers the Authorized Officer to confiscate any forest produce, along with tools or vehicles, if Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 he has reasons to believe that a forest offense has been committed. Such confiscation is a civil action in rem and independent of criminal prosecution, aimed at protecting forests by immediately disabling the instruments of the offense. Notably, the statutory scheme places a stringent burden on the vehicle owner to avoid confiscation. The owner must affirmatively prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all due precautions were taken to prevent its misuse. Mere assertions of innocence by the owner do not suffice; the law requires credible evidence to substantiate the lack of knowledge and the exercise of due care. In other words, the owner’s liability in such forest-offense cases is almost absolute, it is not enough to simply suggest an innocent explanation on a balance of probabilities. 7. This strict approach has been endorsed by the Supreme Court to ensure that forest laws are not undermined by leniency. As observed in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan1 , vehicles involved in forest offenses should ordinarily not be returned until all proceedings (including confiscation) conclude, barring exceptional circumstances. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. This Court is of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in including confiscatory respect of such offence, 1 2000 (7) SCC 80 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come.” 8. Applying the above legal principles to the facts at hand, the Court finds no illegality or perversity in the confiscation order. The seized items (30 Sal and 5 Sisoo timber ballahs) unquestionably fall within the definition of “forest produce.” Under Section 2(g) of the Orissa Forest Act, timber is classified as forest produce whether found in, or brought from a forest or not. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the wood originated from a reserved forest or was collected by villagers; its transit without a valid permit constitutes a forest offense. The prosecution evidence establishes that on 07.11.2017 at about 8:00 PM, forest officers discovered the petitioner’s pickup van loaded with substantial timber but carrying no transit permit. The official witnesses (PWs 1–5), who are disinterested public officials with no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner, gave a consistent account: the vehicle was found on a public road by the forest beat, laden with freshly sawn Sal and Sisoo logs, and the driver fled upon the officers’ approach. Their testimonies regarding the seizure and the absence of any permit or documentation for the wood have remained unshaken in cross-examination. Minor discrepancies, such as whether the driver was absent or fled, do not detract from the core fact Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 that the vehicle was being used to hold and transport forest produce illegally. Mere parking of the vehicle at the time of seizure does not exempt it from the offense, the very act of unauthorized possession and transit-preparation of timber on a public road without license is a breach of the forest law. 9. The defence put forth by the petitioner is unconvincing and unsupported by credible evidence. Though he claimed to be in Delhi, no medical records or proof of precautionary measures were produced. The plea of “forcible loading” by villagers is implausible: no inventory or record of the timber stock was shown, no FIR was lodged about the alleged coercion, and it is unlikely villagers would transport community wood late at night in such a manner. The driver and villagers’ testimony, being self-serving and inconsistent, was rightly disbelieved. By contrast, the seizure witnesses’ account is coherent, supported by the discovery of timber without permit, and carries the presumption of regularity. No mala fides of forest officials are established. 10. The petitioner has failed to discharge the statutory burden to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance, or that due diligence was exercised to prevent misuse. Mere denial or blaming villagers is insufficient. No documentary proof of precautions or independent supervision was produced, and the driver’s testimony, being aligned with the owner, lacks credibility. The circumstances instead point to the owner’s consent or negligence, which is fatal to his case. Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 21:15:27 11. On overall consideration, this Court finds the confiscation of the vehicle and timber legal and justified. The Authorized Officer had sufficient reason to believe an offence was committed, the procedure of notice and hearing was followed, and no violation of the 1980 Rules is shown. The concurrent findings are neither perverse nor irrational. In line with binding precedents, the Petitioner’s failure to exonerate himself leaves no ground for interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed and the confiscation order affirmed; the authorities may proceed in accordance with law. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 12. 13. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/ (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Page 8 of 8