Orissa High Court
Satya Swarup Pattanaik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 22 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29509 of 2025
(In the matter of petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Satya Swarup Pattanaik .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Kaberi Mohanty, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 17.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 22.01.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in F.A.O. No.1 of 2025. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 06.02.2022, at about 4.30 PM, the complainant, Prasant Kumar Karjee, Forester, Khalikote, while on patrolling duty along with Manoj Sethi, Forest Guard, and Babi Pallei of the Forest Protection Squad, intercepted Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 a white-coloured Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. OD-33AD-
8793 on National Highway No. 16 near Kespur Market on suspicion.
(ii) Upon inspection, the vehicle was found to be carrying ten Sisoo logs along with one Palo and rope. The driver of the vehicle, namely Nabin Mistri, failed to produce any valid documents authorising transportation of the said forest produce. Consequently, the vehicle along with the Sisoo logs was seized, brought to the Range Office, Khalikote, and produced before the Range Officer.
(iii) Thereafter, a case was registered against the vehicle and the driver, Nabin Mistri, vide O.R. Case No. 275 of 2021-22 of Khalikote Range, and the said accused was forwarded to the learned J.M.F.C. for judicial custody. Further, confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 were initiated in respect of the seized vehicle against the petitioner and the accused.
(iv) It is further stated that, at the time of seizure, the accused Nabin Mistri produced a gift deed, which had been handed over to him by the landowner, Smt. Hemalata Jena of village Baliajhara, District Ganjam, in favour of the Hanuman Temple Committee, Maluda. The accused claimed to be illiterate and stated that he was unaware of the requirement of a transit permit, believing the gift deed to be sufficient authorisation for transportation of the Sisoo logs from private land. He further stated that the vehicle belonged to Judhistira Sahoo.
(v) During trial, Nabin Mistri was examined as D.W.2 and reiterated that the vehicle belonged to Judhistira Sahoo and that the transportation of Sisoo logs was undertaken without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 the petitioner's case that Judhistira Sahoo had informed him on 06.02.2022 that he was proceeding to Bhubaneswar for carrying goods. When the petitioner did not find the vehicle parked in front of his house in the evening, attempts were made to contact Judhistira Sahoo, which proved unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have lodged an F.I.R. at Baidyanath Police Station, though the same was not registered.
(vi) It is further stated that after about ten days, the petitioner came to know that the vehicle had been seized by the Forest Department and that a notice dated 21.05.2022 was issued to him after verification of ownership from the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar-II. The petitioner was examined as D.W.1 in the proceeding.
(vii) After recording the statement of the accused, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Prasant Kumar Karjee, Forester, Khalikote Section. In the course of the enquiry, on 17.03.2022, the Enquiry Officer visited village Baliajhara to verify the genuineness of the gift deed and found the same to be genuine. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to village Maluda to verify the statement of the accused, where the priest of Hanuman Temple, who were witnesses to the gift deed, were examined. The statements of Gadadhar Das, Digambar Das, and Pradip Kumar Das were recorded, which corroborated the version of the accused. Upon completion of the enquiry, the final report was submitted before the Forest Divisional Officer on 25.07.2022.
(viii) The learned Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Berhampur Forest Division, Berhampur, upon consideration of the materials on record, held that the seized Sisoo logs constituted "forest Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 produce" within the meaning of Sections 2(g)(i)(a) and 2(g)(i)(b) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. It was further held that a forest offence had been committed by using the seized vehicle and that both the vehicle and the forest produce were liable for confiscation under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The Authorized Officer further recorded a finding that neither the owner of the seized vehicle nor his agent had been able to establish that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken to prevent the use of the vehicle for commission of a forest offence, as contemplated under Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(ix) Aggrieved by the order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred F.A.O. No. 1 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, challenging the same. Before the appellate court, it was contended that the petitioner was innocent and that the vehicle had been used for commission of the alleged offence without his knowledge. It was further urged that the Sisoo logs had been transported from private land under supporting documents and, therefore, did not fall within the definition of "forest produce" under Section 2 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, as the said provision would apply only when such produce is found in or brought from a forest area. It was also contended that the seizure had taken place on National Highway No. 16 and that, in absence of any forest offence, the petitioner's vehicle could not have been confiscated. However, the learned District Judge, upon consideration of the materials on record, held that the seized Sisoo logs squarely fell within the definition of "forest produce" under Section 2(g)(i)(A) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The appellate court further held that the petitioner had Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 failed to produce any cogent material to establish that he had exercised due diligence or had taken effective steps to prevent illegal use of the vehicle, and that mere denial of knowledge was insufficient to escape statutory liability. Accordingly, by judgment dated 23.09.2025, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of confiscation.
(x) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed in F.A.O. No. 1 of 2025 by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Ms. Kaberi Mohanty earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) It was submitted that Nabin Kumar Mistri had taken the vehicle from Judhistira Sahoo, the driver of the petitioner. Upon examination, Nabin Mistri stated that he had no driving licence and believed that the owner of the vehicle was Judhistira Sahoo, from whom he had taken the offending vehicle, and that he was transporting the Sisoo logs without the knowledge of the petitioner.
(ii) It was further submitted that Nabin Mistri, being an illiterate person, was unaware of the requirement of a transit permit, and that by virtue of a gift deed he was transporting the Sisoo logs from private land to the Hanuman Temple for the purpose of carving idols, believing Judhistira Sahoo to be the owner of the vehicle.
(iii) It was submitted that the learned court below illegally exercised its jurisdiction by holding that, since no copy of the F.I.R. was filed, the Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 petitioner had not taken steps to examine Judhistira Sahoo, and that the petitioner had not cancelled the plain paper agreement despite the alleged violation of its conditions, thereby concluding that the burden of proof cast upon the owner of the vehicle had not been discharged.
(iv) It was further submitted that when the petitioner did not find his vehicle parked in front of his house, he immediately attempted to contact Judhistira Sahoo, but could not do so. On the following day, the petitioner went to Baidyanathpur Police Station to lodge an F.I.R., but the same was not registered, due to which no written complaint could be produced. After about ten days, the petitioner came to know that his vehicle had been seized by the Forest Department.
(v) It was also submitted that Judhistira Sahoo was absconding and could not be contacted by the petitioner and, therefore, could not be examined.
It was contended that when the accused Nabin Mistri had disclosed the name of Judhistira Sahoo as the owner of the vehicle, no steps were taken to trace or examine the said Judhistira Sahoo.
(vi) It was submitted that the learned court below exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in holding that the appellant never took any step in the case and did not even choose to appear before the authorized officer or any forest official. It was submitted that after coming to know about the seizure of his vehicle, the petitioner had made a representation before the Khalikote Range Officer, Ganjam, seeking release of the vehicle after proper investigation. It was further submitted that upon receipt of notice to face trial, the petitioner duly appeared through counsel before the competent authority.
Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44
(vii) It was submitted that the learned court below has wrongly interpreted the definition of "forest produce" as defined under Sections 2(g)(i) and 2(g)(ii) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972.
(viii) It was further submitted that the seized Sisoo logs were found on National Highway No. 16 and were neither found in nor brought from any forest area and, therefore, could not have been treated as forest produce. However, the learned court below erroneously held such submission to be misconceived.
(ix) It was submitted that the petitioner had established that his vehicle was used without his knowledge by the accused Nabin Mistri, who was neither his agent nor engaged by him for transportation of Sisoo logs from private land. It was further submitted that Nabin Mistri himself admitted that, due to his ignorance, he had taken the offending vehicle from Judhistira Sahoo and committed the offence.
(x) It was further submitted that Nabin Mistri is facing trial for violation of Rule 4, punishable under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra earnestly made the following submissions:
(i) The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner as well as his agent-driver had used the seized vehicle for commission of a forest offence and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim protection under Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44
(ii) It was submitted that in the present case, the Forester, Khalikote, namely Sri Prasanta Kumar Karjee, registered a forest offence on 06.02.2022 vide O.R. Case No. 275 of 2021-22, wherein illegal transportation of ten numbers of Sisoo logs measuring 48.966 cubic feet, along with one palo, rope and a Bolero Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-33 AD- 8793, was detected and seized at Keshapur Market on National Highway No.16 for transportation of forest produce without a valid Timber Transit permit.
(iii) It was further submitted that under Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, the law is well settled that the owner of the vehicle must establish that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such misuse. In the instant case, the burden of proof clearly lay upon the petitioner- owner, which he failed to discharge, particularly as he did not take any steps to examine his driver, namely Judhistira Sahoo, as a witness in the confiscation proceeding before the Authorized Officer, Berhampur Forest Division.
(iv) It was also submitted that the petitioner's plea of having given the vehicle on lease to his driver is not tenable, as the alleged agreement between the petitioner-owner and Judhistira Sahoo was a plain paper agreement, not registered before any competent authority. Further, the petitioner-owner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to establish that the seized Sisoo logs were not timber. The oral evidence adduced by the accused-driver, Nabin Kumar Mistri, regarding an alleged gift deed Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 dated 07.01.2022 was also stated to be unsubstantiated and unsupported by reliable proof.
(v) It was contended that the petitioner-owner neither took all precautionary measures to prevent his vehicle from being used for illegal purposes nor acted with promptness to ascertain how the vehicle came into the possession of Nabin Kumar Mistri. In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the petitioner-owner failed to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance, or without the knowledge or connivance of his agent-driver, and therefore is not entitled to protection under Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(vi) The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Berhampur Forest Division, or in the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, and therefore the same do not warrant any interference by this Court.
(vii) It was submitted that the seized Sisoo logs are forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(g)(i)(a) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 and were transported for the petitioner's personal gain. It was contended that "forest produce" as defined under Section 2(g)(i) of the Act includes forest produce whether found in or brought from a forest, and that "timber" has been defined under Section 2(n) to include trees fallen or felled and all wood cut up or sawn. In the present case, ten pieces of Sisoo logs seized from the vehicle squarely fall within the definition of Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 forest produce, and the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the seized logs were not timber.
(viii) It was further submitted that the Forester, Khalikote, recorded the confessional statement of the accused driver, namely Nabin Kumar Mistri, wherein he admitted that the Sisoo logs measuring 48.966 cubic feet were transported without a valid Transit (T.T.) Permit or any other lawful authorization. It was contended that under the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, a transit permit is mandatory for transportation of such timber, and unauthorized transportation constitutes an offence punishable under Rule 21 of the said Rules.
(ix) It was also submitted that the Authorized Officer, Berhampur Forest Division examined official witnesses, namely Sri Sidhartha Sankar Sahu (P.W.1 - Forest Range Officer), Sri Prasanta Kumar Karjee (P.W.2 - Forester), Sri Bapi Kumar Pallei (P.W.3 - S.P.S.) and Sri Manoj Sethi (P.W.4 - Forest Guard). All the said witnesses consistently stated that on 06.02.2022, ten Sisoo logs measuring 48.966 cubic feet along with the Bolero Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-33 AD-8793 were seized at Keshapur Market on National Highway No.16 for transportation of forest produce without valid documents. It was contended that nothing material was elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony and that the absence of independent witnesses does not, by itself, render their evidence unreliable. IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44
6. The core issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the findings recorded by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Berhampur Forest Division, and affirmed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, which stipulates that no order of confiscation in respect of any vehicle shall be made if the owner thereof proves, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer, that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent or the person in charge, and that all of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The statutory burden, therefore, squarely rests upon the owner of the seized vehicle.
8. Upon careful scrutiny of the materials on record, this Court finds that both the Authorized Officer as well as the appellate authority have concurrently held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 56(2-c) of the Act. The findings reflect that the petitioner had admittedly entrusted the vehicle to Judhistira Sahoo, and no cogent or convincing evidence was produced to demonstrate that effective precautionary measures were taken to prevent illegal use of the vehicle.
9. It is imperative to note that Judhistira Sahoo, who was stated to be the driver and the person in charge of the vehicle, was not examined before the confiscating authority. Further, no contemporaneous documentary Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44 evidence was adduced to establish that immediate steps were taken to report the alleged unauthorised use of the vehicle. Mere assertion that the driver was absconding, without substantiation by credible material, cannot be accepted as sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement of due diligence.
10. As regards the contention that the seized Sisoo logs do not constitute forest produce, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the authorities below. "Forest produce" as defined under Section 2(g)(i) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 includes timber, and "timber" has been defined under Section 2(n) to mean trees fallen or felled and all wood cut up or sawn. The Sisoo logs seized in the present case, therefore, squarely fall within the said definition.
11. The mere fact that the seizure took place on National Highway No. 16, or the bare assertion that the logs were allegedly sourced from private land, does not, by itself, take the case outside the purview of the Act. Transportation of timber without a valid Transit Permit is prohibited under the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, irrespective of the source of such timber, and any violation thereof squarely attracts the confiscatory jurisdiction under the Act.
12. This Court is also mindful of the settled position of law that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only where such findings are shown to be perverse, vitiated by patent illegality, or suffer from jurisdictional error. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the present case.
Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 10:42:44
13. The record reveals that the confiscation proceedings were conducted after affording due opportunity of hearing, evidence was recorded, official witnesses were examined, and reasons have been assigned by both the statutory authority and the appellate court while arriving at their conclusions. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from patent illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
V. CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the vehicle was used without his knowledge and despite exercise of all reasonable and necessary precautions, as mandated under Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The findings recorded by the Authorized Officer and affirmed by the learned District Judge do not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd Jan., 2026/-.
Page 13