Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan

Orissa HC9 Aug 2023WP(C)/30933/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's writ petition challenging an appellate order that released vehiclesthat were previously ordered confiscated for allegedly carrying stolen forest poles. The Court held there was no evidence to prove the owner had knowledge of the offense.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the writ petition challenging the order releasing the vehicles was dismissed.

State of Orissa Vs Raghunath Pradhan — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011

¶3

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

¶4

¶5

State of Odisha … Petitioner

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Raghunath Pradhan and another … Opposite Party
Advocate for the Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dash,
Additional Government Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and Dismissed on 09.08.2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT

¶8

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Judgment dated 11^th August, 2011 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Boudh in F.A.O. No.01 of 2011 filed under Section 56 (2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (For brevity ‘the Act’) is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby reversing the order passed by learned Authorized Officer-cum-D.F.O., Boudh division, Boudh dated 17^th January, 2011 (Annexure-4), learned appellate Court directed to release Tractor bearing Registration No.OR-12-A-7167 and Trolley bearing Registration No.OR-12-A-7168 (for brevity ‘the

¶9

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011

¶12

vehicles’) as well as forty meters long plastic rope in favour of the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that as would reveal from the offence report, on 2^nd April, 2010 when at about 11.10 PM when the Staffs of Purunakatak Forest Range were on patrolling duty at Phuljharipahadi village, they detected the aforesaid tractor and trolley loaded with 350 numbers of green poles of different sizes. On suspicion, the forest staffs detained the vehicles. The driver of the vehicles namely, Sunakar Pradhan could not produce any valid permit for transportation of the forest produce. Accordingly, the vehicles along with the forest produce and other articles were seized. Upon completion of enquiry, confiscation proceeding was initiated in respect of the seized vehicles as well as articles. The Authorized Officer-cum-D.F.O., Boudh Division, Boudh vide order dated 17^th January, 2011 (Annexure-4) directed to confiscate the aforesaid vehicles along with the seized articles. Assailing the same the Petitioner preferred appeal in F.A.O. No. 01 of 2011. Learned appellate Court taking assistance of Section 56(2-c) of the Act held that the Opposite Party No.1 - owner of the vehicles had no knowledge about the transportation of forest produce. Thus, he set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer and directed to release the vehicles along with articles except the forest produce in favour of the owner of the vehicles (Opposite Party No.1). Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶14

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that in the meantime, the vehicles have already been

¶15

Page 2 of 5

¶16

W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011

¶17

released in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 17^th December, 2012 passed in W.P.(C). No.30717 of 2011.

¶18

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government, however, submits that in the Jamabandi the driver himself had admitted that the forest produce was being transported as per the instruction of the Opposite Party No.1. The said material aspect was lost sight of by learned appellate Court while adjudicating the appeal. He further submits that since the driver - Opposite Party No.2 was acting as an agent of the Opposite Party, it is presumed that the Opposite Party No.1 had knowledge about illegal transportation of the forest produce. Law is well settled that for any act done by the agent, the principal would be held liable. As such, learned Authorized Officer had committed no error in directing confiscation of the vehicles. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa -v- Kiran Sankar Panda & others reported in Vol.71 (1991) CLT 157, wherein it is held that mens rea is not necessary to be established for holding guilty of an offence under the Act. Thus, knowledge of the Opposite Party about commission of forest offence by the driver is immaterial for confiscating the vehicles along with the articles seized. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to surrender the vehicles to the forest authority. 6. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that learned appellate Court dealt with the matter in detail and passed the impugned order. At paragraph 5 of the impugned order, learned appellate Court had dealt with the issue vividly. With reference to Question No.8 under Exhibit-3, the

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011

¶21

driver of the vehicle, namely, Sunakar Pradhan - Opposite Party No.2 had categorically refused the suggestion that the owner of the vehicle (Opposite Party No.1) had any knowledge about the transportation of the forest produce in the said vehicles. On the other hand, said Sunakar Pradhan had stated that the Secretary of Amar Club, namely, Pratap Kumar Barik had sent him to bring the poles by the tractor. The said statement was never controverted by the forest officials by producing materials to the contrary. As such, the impugned order should not be interfered with.

¶22

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Parties and on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-5, this Court finds that at Paragrapg-5 of the impugned order, learned appellate Court dealt with the plea of knowledge of the owner (Opposite Party No.1) of the vehicles for commission of forest offence. Section 56(2-c) of the Act clearly provides that vehicle shall not be the subject matter of confiscation, if the forest offence is committed without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, except Jamabandi as relied upon by the Authorized Officer, no other material is available on record to establish that the Opposite Party No.1 had any knowledge of commission of forest offence with the aforesaid vehicles. Learned appellate Court dealt with the material available in detail while adjudicating the appeal, more particularly, with regard to the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1 about commission of the forest offence. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 the driver, namely, Sunakar Pradhan, in his

¶23

Page 4 of 5

¶24

W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011

¶25

reply to question no.8 categorically refused the suggestions of the forest officials to the effect that the owner of the vehicle had any knowledge of such forest offence. He had also categorically asserted that on the instruction of the Secretary of the Amar Club, the green poles were being transported. In the meantime, the vehicles have already been released in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to the direction of the Court in W.P.(C). No.30717 of 2011. Since, learned appellate Court on assessment of evidence has come to a conclusion that the Opposite Party No.1 had no knowledge about transportation of the forest produce in the aforesaid tractor and trolley, I am not inclined to interfere with the same only because a second view may be possible on re-appreciation of the evidence. Except a Jamabandi no other material is produced to establish that the Opposite Party No.1 had any knowledge of commission of forest offence with the aid of the vehicles. Jamabandi was recorded by the forest official at the time of seizure of the vehicles. To the contrary, overwhelming materials are available on record to hold that the Opposite Party had no knowledge of commission of forest offence with the aid of his vehicles. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Rojalin Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Aug-2023 18:21:01

¶30

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011

¶32

Page 5 of 5

State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagaban Behera Vs Laxmidhar Gochhayat

Chandrabhanu Das Vs Soubhagyabati Nayak

M/S.Laxmipati Balaji Vs State and Ors.

Birabar Pradhan andORS Vs Budhei Dei

Puspalata Parida Vs Rajkishore Pradhan

Rabindra Ku.Das Vs State and Ors.