In this writ petition, the State challenged the Additional District Judge's finding that there was no evidence the vehicle owner knew of the offence. The Court dismissed the petition as no benefit accrued given the four-year lapse since the impugned order.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.8596 of 2017
Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-petitioners.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Padampur in FAO No.09/04 of 2012/14.
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-petitioners submits that on 03.08.2008 at about 6.30 PM, the Range Officer of the Nrusinghnath Forest Range had seized one Pickup Van bearing Registration No.OR-17C-8885 while transporting 104 pieces of Sal and Bija timber measuring 40.321 cft. without any valid permit. Accordingly, the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bargarh Forest Division initiated confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’). He further submits that on the date of occurrence, the owner of the vehicle had entrusted the vehicle to its driver to carry some Bolbum devotees of Singhanpur at their request with his driver, namely, Susanta. The driver of the vehicle after alighting the devotees at Nrusinghnath had parked the vehicle nearby and entrusted the vehicle in question to one Rajesh Tangi for watch and ward and gave the key to him informing him to come back within two hours after darshan. On his return from Nrusinghnath Temple after offering the prayer, he could notice that the vehicle was not there and subsequently
2
came to know that the vehicle has been seized being involved in an forest offence. Mr. Mishra, therefore, submits that the driver had never lodged any F.I.R. for missing of the vehicle from the spot where he had parked. He, therefore, submits that the offence has been committed in a well designed manner to get rid of the rigorous of Section 56 of the Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the original owner of the vehicle had no knowledge about the involvement of the vehicle in an forest offence. He contended that these material aspects were not taken into consideration by learned Additional District Judge, Padampur while adjudicating the appeal. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
Having heard Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-petitioners and perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional District Judge, Padampur while adjudicating the matter had discussed the materials in threadbare and recorded a finding to the effect that there is no material to come to a conclusion that the owner of the vehicle had in fact the knowledge of involvement of the vehicle in an forest offence. Moreover, in the meantime more than four years have already elapsed from the date of passing of the impugned order. Thus, no fruitful purpose will be served by entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
……..…………………… K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
jm
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 should be entertained despite the lapse of time.
Whether there is evidence that the original owner of the vehicle had knowledge of the forest offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State-petitioners
Respondent
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
