Orissa High Court
Authorised Officer-Cum-Assistant vs Digeswar Bisi .... Opposite Party (S) on 13 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 32977 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant .... Petitioner(s)
Conservator of Forest, Bargarh
Forest Division
-versus-
Digeswar Bisi .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debendra Ku. Dhar, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-19.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2025
Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition is challenging the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh in F.A.O. No. 16/26 of 2021-22.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(i) During a routine patrol near Turla village, the Forest Staff of Paikmal Range intercepted a Swaraj Tractor bearing the Registration No. CG- 06GK-1758, along with a trolley, loaded with 60 non-sal poles and 3 axes at approximately 7:30 PM on 26.10.2019.
(ii) Upon inquiry, the driver and the three other individuals present in the vehicle failed to produce valid documents authorizing the transportation of the 60 non-sal poles.
(iii) Consequently, the Forester of Jharbandh Section seized the vehicle and its load, preparing a seizure list in the presence of available witnesses. The seized produce was kept in his Zimanama and the logs were branded using the seized hammer No.SEIZED- 17 of Bargarh Forest Division.
(iv) A forest offence case was subsequently registered as OR No. 74 of 2019- 20 under Paikmal Range for violations of Rules 4, 12, and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Orissa Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, which attracts the provisions under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The accused persons were produced before the S.D.J.M., Padampur in 2
(b) CC No.24 of 2016.
(v) The Forester of Jharbandh conducted an inquiry and submitted a report along with the case record and supporting documents to the Range Officer, Paikmal. After conducting his own inquiry, the Range Officer forwarded a final report to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Bargarh, recommending the initiation of confiscation proceedings against the seized vehicle.
Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(vi) Based on this report, the DFO, Bargarh, appointed the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bargarh, as the Authorised Officer to initiate confiscation proceedings.
(vii) After following due procedure, the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bargarh, confiscated the vehicle and the forest produce vide order dated 29.09.2021.
(viii) Aggrieved by this order, the Opposite Party filed an appeal in F.A.O. No. 16 of 2021 before the District Judge, Bargarh, who subsequently transferred the matter to the Additional District Judge, Bargarh, where it was re-registered as F.A.O. No. 16/26 of 2021-2022.
(ix) After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Additional District Judge, Bargarh, by order dated 30.06.2023, directed the release of the confiscated Swaraj Tractor and trolley. It was observed that no forest official had verified the claimed plot, nor did any official report specify the exact location from which the timber was felled.
(x) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court, seeking to quash the impugned order on the grounds that it is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 30.06.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bargarh in F.A.O. No. 16/26 of 2021-22, is illegal, erroneous, contrary to law and passed without Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 application of judicial mind. The order suffers from serious infirmities, and as such, is liable to be set aside.
(ii) The petitioner contended that the impugned order warrants interference as the finding suffers from perversity, given that the Authorised Officer, in the confiscation order, had categorically established the seizure of 60 non-sal poles, classified as forest produce under Section 2(g)(i)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, from the vehicle in question, which was being transported by the present opposite party.
The Additional District Judge erroneously observed that the Forest Department failed to establish that the 60 non-sal poles were either found in or brought from a forest, despite clear findings to the contrary in the confiscation order.
(iii) The petitioner submitted that the Additional District Judge committed a gross error of law by disregarding the petitioner's plea that since the accused persons had been arrested for violations of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, and Rules 4, 12, and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, the vehicle was liable to be seized under Section 56(2) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(iv) The petitioner further contended that the Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that a liberal approach in matters concerning the confiscation of seized properties, which are used for destroying and damaging the forest environment, is unwarranted. A lenient stance in such matters would only encourage further offenses relating to forests and forest produce.
Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(v) The petitioner submitted that the Additional District Judge committed a gross error of law by disregarding the petitioner's plea that since the accused persons who arrested for violations of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, and Rules 4, 12, and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, the vehicle was liable to be seized under Section 56(2) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(vi) The petitioner submitted that the Additional District Judge failed to appreciate that the offending vehicle, owned by the present opposite party, was found transporting forest produce without any valid documentation. Furthermore, the owner of the vehicle is liable for any act of commission or omission by the driver.
(vii) The petitioner submitted that after receipt of the order dated 30.06.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bargarh, in F.A.O. No. 16/26 of 2021-22, the matter was examined at various Government levels, and following the completion of necessary official procedures, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Forest Department failed to establish the precise location from which the 60 non-sal poles were obtained or whether they were sourced from a forest. None of the officials examined could state with certainty the precise location from where the tractor, trolley, and logs were seized. The evidence on record was vague and lacked material particulars regarding the origin of the alleged forest produce.Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(ii) The Forest Officials had neither visited the location where the logs had allegedly been felled nor conducted any detailed examination or inquiry to determine their origin.
(iii) The 60 non-sal poles did not constitute forest produce but were grown on the Opposite Party's private land. Certain miscreants had unlawfully felled the poles and left them on the Opposite Party's land with the intent to commit theft. Apprehending such theft, the Opposite Party approached the Forester, Jharbandh, seeking permission to transport the poles to his residence. Upon being granted oral permission, the Opposite Party was in the process of shifting them when the seizure took place.
(iv) The seized tractor was valued at over ten lakh rupees, whereas the 60 non-sal poles were worth approximately six thousand rupees. Further, the tractor was purchased through a bank loan, and its seizure caused financial distress, making loan repayment difficult.
(v) The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, namely Khetramohan, Devilal, and Rasmiranjan, who were on patrol duty on the relevant date, merely indicated that Forester LabaSahu had intercepted the vehicle. However, the statements of Rajendra Kumar Singh and LabaSahu revealed that they heard a sound and proceeded to the location, where they found the tractor and trolley allegedly loaded with forest produce. It was found that these statements were inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish any direct evidence against the Opposite Party.
Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(vi) The Inquiry Officer has failed to prepare a sketch map of the location in question, which was a crucial omission in the investigation.
(vii) The alleged admission of the tractor driver/owner could not be relied upon as conclusive evidence as the driver was not conversant in Oriya language, and no translation of his statement was provided to him to ensure proper comprehension. Moreover, there was no endorsement by the Forest Officials certifying that the contents of the statement, recorded in Oriya, were read over and explained to the driver in Hindi before obtaining his signature.
(viii) The Additional District Judge, Bargarh, in F.A.O. No. 16/26 of 2021-22, rightfully directed the release of the confiscated Swaraj Tractor and trolley. It was established that the poles had been cut from the Opposite Party's own plot and transported using his tractor. Furthermore, it was observed that no forest official had verified the claimed plot, nor did any official report specify with respect to the exact location from which the timber had been felled. As there is no legal or factual infirmity in the order, there is no ground for interference.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The present Writ Petition is challenging the order dated 30.06.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bargarh, in FAO No. 16/26 of 2021-22, wherein the confiscated Swaraj Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-06GK-1758and trolley were directed to be released. Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
7. The Additional District Judge, Bargarh found that the prosecution had failed to establish the precise origin of the 60 non-sal poles and that the forest authorities had not verified the owner's assertion that the poles had been sourced from his private land.
8. Further, inconsistencies were noted in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the circumstances of seizure, and crucial procedural lapses such as the failure to prepare a spot map were taken into consideration. Additionally, it was observed that the statement attributed to the respondent was recorded in Oriya without ensuring that its contents were explained to him in Hindi before obtaining his signature. Consequently, the Additional District Judge, Bargarh held that the prosecution failed to establish that the Opposite Party had knowingly transported forest produce or had not taken due precautions to prevent misuse of his vehicle.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the primary issue for consideration is whether the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh, suffers from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
10. Before delving into the factual matrix, it is necessary to examine the relevant statutory provisions in this regard. Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, governs the seizure of property liable to confiscation and stipulates the conditions under which forest produce, along with tools, vehicles, and other equipment, may be seized and confiscated. The provision reads as follows:
"56. Seizure of property liable to confiscation-Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. (2) Every officer seizing any property under this Section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, except where the offender agrees in writing to get the offence compounded [under Section 72] [either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer') or] make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:
Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer make, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior and the Divisional forest Officer.
(2-a) When an authorized officer seizes any forest produce under Sub- section (1) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub- section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof , [he shall] order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence. (2-b) No order confiscating any property shall be made under Sub-section (2-a) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given-
(a) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property;
(b) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable times as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation; and Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the manner. (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 authorized officer that it was used without 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.
(2-d) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Conservator of Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification, may, within thirty days from the date of the order of confiscation by the authorized officer under Sub- section (2- a) either suomotu or on application, call for and examine the records of the case and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such order as he may think fit:
Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. (2-e) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub- section (2-a) or Subsection (2-d) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District judge having Jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final.
(3) The property seized under this section shall be kept in the custody of a Forest Officer or with any third party, until the compensation for compounding the offence is paid or until an order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received.
Provided that the seized property shall not be released during pendency of the confiscation proceeding or trial even on the application of the owner of the property for such release."
Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
11. Furthermore, Section 2(g) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, defines "forest produce" and is replicated hereinunder:
"2. Definition
(g) 'forest' produce includes -
(i) xxx
(ii) the following when found in or brought from a forest that is to say
(a) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce of trees not hereinbefore mentioned;
(b) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds, and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants;
(c) honey, wax and arrowroot;
(d) peat, surface oil, rock, sand and minerals (including limestone, late rite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries) (emphasis supplied)"
12. A combined reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it abundantly clear that for confiscation to be ordered, it must first be established that a forest offence has been committed in respect of "forest produce" and that such produce has been found in or brought from a forest. Mere possession or transportation of wood, without proof of its origin, cannot automatically warrant confiscation under Section 56.
13. In the present case, there is no material on record which conclusively demonstrates that the 60 non-sal poles were sourced from a forest. On perusal of the material placed before this court it is observed that during cross-examination, the seizing officer admitted that the produce was merely suspected to have been brought from the nearby forest but could not categorically identify its point of origin. On the other hand, Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 the Opposite Party consistently maintained that the poles were removed from his rayati (record holding) land.
14. Notably, none of the forest officials examined in the course of the proceedings could specify the exact location from which the timber had been cut or loaded and provided inconsistent statements regarding the circumstances under which the vehicle was found. Further, no spot map was prepared to indicate the place of seizure.
15. Furthermore, the alleged admission of the Opposite Party was recorded in Oriya, but no endorsement was made by the forest authorities confirming that its contents had been read over and explained to him in Hindi, the language he understands. In light of this procedural lapse, such an admission, if any, cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof of guilt.
16. It is also imperative to note that under Section 56(2a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 cannot be ordered if the owner demonstrates that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had exercised due diligence to prevent its misuse.
17. In the instant case, there is no cogent evidence to establish the Opposite Parties' deliberate act to facilitate a forest offence or any demonstration that due precaution was not taken to prevent the misuse of the vehicle.
18. In the absence of any credible material to substantiate the petitioner's contention that that the vehicle in question was used in the commission of a forest offence with the respondent's knowledge or connivance, this Court finds no legal basis to interfere with the reasoned order of the Additional District Judge, Bargarh. The findings of the lower court do Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness, or material irregularity warranting intervention.
V. CONCLUSION:
19. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition.
20. The order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh, dated 30.06.2023, directing the release of the confiscated tractor and trolley, does not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness, or material irregularity warranting intervention.
21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th March, 2025 Page 13 of 13