State of Orissa Vs Niranjan Nayak

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 16317 of 2011 Along with CONTC No.697 of 2011

¶4

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

¶5

(In W.P.(C) No. 16317 of 2011)

¶6

State of Orissa …. Petitioner(s) -versus…. Niranjan Nayak Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate

¶7

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

¶8

(In CONTC No.697 of 2011)

¶9

Niranjan Nayak …. Petitioner(s) -versusSurdarsan Behera, Divisional Forest …. Opposite Party (s)/ Officer, Athagarh Forest Division, Contemnor Athagarh

¶10

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate For Opposite Party (s)/ : Mrs. J. Sahoo, Contemnor Additional Standing Counsel

¶12

Page 1 of 13

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶14

CORAM:

¶15

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶16

DATE OF HEARING:-02.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025

¶17

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

¶18

1. The Petitioner/ State in the Writ Petition prays for quashing of the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No.46 of 2009 and for reinstatement of the confiscation ordered on 04.02.2009, along with any other appropriate relief.

¶19

2. The Petitioner (Niranjan Nayak) has filed the CONTC for noncompliance of the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No.46 of 2009 by the Opposite Party/ Contemnor.

¶20

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

¶21

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶22

(i) On the morning of the 29.05.2007 at around 8:00 AM, the Range Officer of Khuntuni Forest Range received reliable intelligence that a white D.I. Pick-up vehicle without a number plate was being used to illegally transport timber along National Highway-42, traveling from Dhenkanal to Cuttack.

¶23

(ii) Acting on the information, forest officials set up a checkpoint at Jharan Nursery in an attempt to intercept the vehicle. However, upon noticing the officials, the driver of the suspected vehicle sped away, evading the initial interception.

¶24

(iii) A chase ensued along NH-42. At Bali Chhak, a group of individuals led by a known timber smuggler named Ranjan Majhi intervened. They

¶25

Page 2 of 13

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶27

reportedly escorted the fleeing vehicle and obstructed the forest officials from continuing the chase.

¶28

(iv) The group, allegedly associated with the smuggling operation, attacked the forest and police personnel using stones, iron rods, and lathis. As a result, several officials were injured, and the official vehicle used by the Range Officer was damaged during the confrontation.

¶29

(v) Following the attack, the Choudwar Police Station intervened promptly. They rescued the injured forest staff and subsequently registered Police Station Case No. 92/2007 to investigate the assault and the illegal timber transport.

¶30

(vi) On 04.02.2009, the Authorised Officer passed an order directing the confiscation of both the vehicle and the sal logs to the State Government. The decision was based on the driver’s confession, the owner’s alleged complicity, and the assumption that the vehicle had been used for transporting forest produce illegally.

¶31

(vii) Aggrieved by the confiscation order, Niranjan Nayak (Opp. Party) filed an appeal designated as F.A.O. No. 46 of 2009 before the District Judge, Cuttack. On 02.12.2010, the District Judge issued an order, reversing the confiscation. The judge noted several legal and evidentiary deficiencies in the original proceeding and directed that the vehicle be released to its registered owner, Niranjan Nayak.

¶32

II. FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT:

¶33

4. The District Judge, Cuttack passed an order on 02.12.2010. The findings of the Court is produced below:

¶34

Page 3 of 13

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶36

(i) The appellant had admitted to being the owner of the TATA DI vehicle bearing registration number OR-05Y-3713. However, mere ownership was not enough to hold him liable unless a direct connection was established between the vehicle and the alleged forest offence.

¶37

(ii) The Forest Department did not establish a clear and convincing link between the seized vehicle and the illegal transportation of forest produce. It was observed that the timber in question was not found in the vehicle at the time of seizure. Instead, it was recovered from an open area in village Kochila Nuagaon. This raised significant doubt as to whether the vehicle was actually involved in the commission of the forest offence.

¶38

(iii) The Forest Range Officer (P.W.4), who was a key prosecution witness, admitted under cross-examination that he did not know where the timber was actually seized from. This admission undermined the Department's claim and reflected poor investigation. His inability to connect the timber directly to the vehicle further diluted the prosecution’s position.

¶39

(iv) Several inconsistencies emerged in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. For example, P.W.4 stated that nine pieces of 'Sal' wood were seized, whereas P.W.1 stated it was eight. Additionally, P.W.1 brought up a new version of events during his testimony, claiming that the vehicle was transporting “ten bags of husks.” This version was not part of the original seizure report, indicating that it may have been an afterthought and thus unreliable. Furthermore, there was conflicting

¶40

Page 4 of 13

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶42

information about whether the vehicle had a registration number plate at the time of seizure.

¶43

(v) The vehicle was not caught red-handed transporting forest produce. Rather, it was seized from a garage in Narsinghpur. At that time, no forest produce was found inside the vehicle. The court noted that such a seizure does not conclusively establish that the vehicle had been involved in the illegal activity on the alleged date.

¶44

(vi) The Forest Department failed to comply with Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980, which mandates proper enquiry and evidence collection procedures. There was no substantial evidence to show that a thorough investigation had been conducted. Additionally, crucial witnesses, such as the garage owner and residents of Kochila Nuagaon, were not examined, which created gaps in the chain of events.

¶45

(vii) There was no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the appellant had knowledge of or involvement in the alleged forest offence. The prosecution could not show that he had consented to or authorized the use of his vehicle for such illegal activity. Hence, mens rea (guilty mind) or active participation was not established.

¶46

(viii) Considering the above shortcomings, the court concluded that the confiscation of the vehicle by the Authorised Officer was not legally justified. The entire proceeding was vitiated due to a lack of concrete evidence, procedural lapses, and contradictions in witness statements. Therefore, the District Court set aside the confiscation order and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant.

¶47

Page 5 of 13

¶48

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶49

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

¶50

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶51

(i) The State submits that the order dated 02.12.2010, passed by the District Judge, is legally flawed and unjustified. The said order arbitrarily reverses a well-reasoned and evidence-backed confiscation order passed by the Authorized Officer, without conducting a proper reevaluation of the facts and materials on record. It is contended that the District Judge failed to give due weight to the documentary and oral evidence, and instead arrived at a conclusion that lacks judicial foundation.

¶52

(ii) The petitioner highlights that Prosecution Witnesses (PWs 2 to 6), all of whom were official personnel, provided consistent, corroborative testimony regarding the events of 29.05.2007, including the chase, obstruction, and illegal timber transport. These witnesses were not discredited during proceedings, and their version of events remains unchallenged and reliable. The petitioner argues that the District Judge did not expressly disbelieve these witnesses, yet still chose to overturn the confiscation order on the sole ground that the driver (Muna Khan) was not examined, which according to the State, is not a legally sufficient reason to discard corroborated official testimonies.

¶53

(iii) The petitioner argues that the District Judge misinterpreted the law by wrongly stating that the vehicle owner must have exclusive possession of the forest produce to be held liable. Liability still exists if the vehicle was used with the owner’s knowledge or direction. Additionally, the

¶54

Page 6 of 13

¶55

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶56

claim that PW 4’s failure to visit the site violates Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest Rules is incorrect, as no such legal requirement exists.

¶57

(iv) The State argues that the seized vehicle was actively involved in transporting illegal timber, with the driver admitting he acted on instructions from the owner, Niranjan Nayak. The vehicle was properly identified, seized, and its ownership confirmed by the RTO, Cuttack. The State also claims this was not a one-time offence, as the vehicle had been used repeatedly for similar activities. Thus, confiscation under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, was justified.

¶58

(v) The petitioner strongly contends that the District Judge failed to reverse or discredit any of the factual findings made by the Authorized Officer in the confiscation order. Despite this, the appellate court chose to reverse the final outcome, thereby violating settled principles of judicial review. In judicial practice, unless factual findings are expressly held to be erroneous or perverse, the appellate authority cannot simply reverse the outcome without addressing the reasoning of the lower authority.

¶59

(vi) The petitioner emphasizes the broader environmental and legal implications of the District Judge’s decision. Releasing a vehicle that was proven to be involved in forest-related offences sends the wrong message and undermines the enforcement of forest protection laws. The decision potentially emboldens repeat offenders and weakens deterrence, which could lead to greater harm to forest resources. The petitioner insists that upholding the confiscation serves a strong public interest, by deterring illegal deforestation and protecting biodiversity.

¶60

Page 7 of 13

¶61

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶62

IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶63

6. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶64

(i) The opposite parties assert that the prosecution's version of events is inconsistent. It is undisputed from the evidence that the vehicle in question was seized by the Choudwar Police at Narasinghpur. However, crucially, it was not carrying any forest produce at the time of seizure. The forest produce (specifically Sal logs) was allegedly seized at a completely different place namely, Kochila Nuagaon, also under Choudwar Police jurisdiction. This discrepancy between the location of the vehicle and that of the forest produce severely weakens the prosecution’s case linking the vehicle to the forest offence.

¶65

(ii) The testimony of P.W.4, the Forest Range Officer, was central to the prosecution’s case, but his cross-examination raised serious doubts. He admitted that he never visited the place where the forest produce was allegedly seized and had no direct knowledge about where it came from. He also stated that only 8 pieces of Sal timber were seized, while the department claimed there were 9. These points show that P.W.4 had no personal knowledge of the key facts and did not carry out any proper investigation. Since he was the senior-most forest officer involved, his weak and unclear testimony greatly undermines the department’s case.

¶66

(iii) The respondents point out that the driver of the vehicle and the garage owner, the two individuals who would be best positioned to explain the circumstances under which the vehicle was found, were not examined

¶67

Page 8 of 13

¶68

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶69

during the proceedings. According to the prosecution, the vehicle was found in a garage in Narasinghpur based on the driver’s statement. However, without producing the driver or garage owner as witnesses, the prosecution has failed to substantiate this claim. This absence of key witness testimony severely undermines the case.

¶70

(iv) All prosecution witnesses conceded during cross-examination that there was no forest produce inside the vehicle when it was seized. There is also no chain of custody or direct evidence that shows the vehicle had ever been used to transport the seized forest produce. This gap is fundamental; without such evidence, there is no basis for confiscating the vehicle under forest laws. The respondents argue that the entire basis for connecting the vehicle to an alleged offence is speculative and unsupported by any concrete or credible material.

¶71

(v) The opposite party emphasizes that the learned District Judge’s order in the FAO case was based on an appraisal of oral and documentary evidence. The judge clearly outlined how the prosecution failed to prove the case, primarily due to the contradictions and evidentiary gaps noted above. Since these findings are based on facts presented and assessed during the hearing, they are not liable to be re-examined by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 227.

¶72

V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

¶73

7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

¶74

Page 9 of 13

¶75

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶76

8. The crux of the dispute lies in the fact that while the State claims the vehicle was used for illegal timber transport based on official testimonies and the driver’s alleged confession, the opposite party argues that no forest produce was found in the vehicle at the time of seizure, and key witnesses like the driver and garage owner were not examined. The District Judge reversed the confiscation order, citing lack of direct evidence, procedural lapses, and contradictions, which, according to the petitioner, was legally unjustified.

¶77

9. Before embarking upon a detailed examination of the legal and factual matrix of the case, it is essential to note that the matter dates back to the year 2011; nearly fourteen years have since elapsed. Regardless of the seriousness or materiality of the disputed issue, the continued retention of the vehicle for such an inordinate length of time cannot be regarded as either justifiable or prudent. In the absence of any compelling or extraordinary circumstances, such prolonged deprivation of property, without finality in adjudication, offends the principles of fairness and proportionality.

¶78

10. A vehicle, by its very nature, is meant for active use and mobility. Keeping it in prolonged official custody serves no meaningful legal or practical purpose. If left unused for an extended period, the vehicle inevitably deteriorates—suffering structural damage, mechanical issues, and a significant loss in both utility and value. This decline can render it unfit for future use. The law does not support the indefinite retention of property when such custody no longer serves the cause of justice.

¶79

Page 10 of 13

¶80

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶81

Instead, legal principles emphasize the preservation and safeguarding of seized property, not its unnecessary decay.

¶82

11. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat¹ , unequivocally held as follows:

¶83

“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”

¶84

12. Similarly, in the recent case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam² , the Supreme Court examined the question of whether a vehicle may be retained in police custody for a prolonged period during the pendency of trial. The Court held as follows:

¶85

“34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

¶86

35.On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods).”

¶87

1 (2002) 10 SCC 283.

¶88

2 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024.

¶89

Page 11 of 13

¶90

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶91

13. Applying the abovementioned precedents to the case at hand, it becomes evident that the continued detention of the vehicle in question, under the pretext of an unresolved dispute, serves no discernible purpose in the advancement of justice. Where the subject matter of a dispute is a perishable or depreciable object such as a vehicle, the court must be conscious of the passage of time as a factor that bears directly upon the equity of the remedy.

¶92

14. The notion that justice can be delivered by indefinitely withholding property from its rightful possessor rests on a false premise. In balancing the scales of justice, the court must weigh not merely the allegations that prompted the initial seizure but also the cost, both tangible and intangible, of continued dispossession.

¶93

15. In resolving disputes such as the present one, the retention of the vehicle for over a decade, without a definitive determination of culpability, stretches the legal process beyond its legitimate reach. The material utility of holding such property diminishes with each passing year, while its burdens: economic, functional, and symbolic, mount. A process that inflicts slow decay under the cover of legality is one that must be carefully re-examined, for it risks transforming the protective arm of the law into an inadvertent agent of erosion.

¶94

16.

¶95

It is neither the function nor the ambition of the court to undo the past, but it is certainly within its province to prevent the perpetuation of avoidable harm. Where there is no longer a clear nexus between the custody of property and the pursuit of justice, such custody begins to resemble an exercise in futility rather than in fairness. To insist on

¶96

Page 12 of 13

¶97

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTAC K Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49

¶98

further delay would be to dignify inertia and disguise wastefulness as vigilance.

¶99

VI. CONCLUSION:

¶100

17. In light of the foregoing considerations, and guided by the enduring principles of proportionality, prudence, and purposive adjudication, this Court is of the considered view that the reinstatement of the order of confiscation of the vehicle cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶101

18. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶102

19. Consequently, the CONTC is disposed of directing the Opposite Party/Contemnor to comply the order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No.46 of 2009.

¶103

20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶104

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶105

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11^th April, 2025/

¶106

Page 13 of 13

State of Orissa v. Niranjan Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Niranjan Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibardhan Mendali Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Pani Vs State of Odisha

Shahzadi Fatma Vs State of Odisha

Dukhi Shyam Swain Vs State of Orissa

Jacob Varghese Vs State of Odisha

Geet Basa Vs Uco Bank