Orissa High Court
******* vs Raghunath Pradhan And Another on 9 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
*******
State of Odisha ... Petitioner
-versus-
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
5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 11th 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 17th 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
W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011
vehicles') as well as forty meters long plastic rope in favour of
the Petitioner.
3. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that as would reveal from the offence report, on 2nd
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 17th 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.
4. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1
submits that in the meantime, the vehicles have already been
W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011
released in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated
17th December, 2012 passed in W.P.(C). No.30717 of 2011.
5. 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
W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011
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.
7. 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
W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011
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.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit
stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on
proper application.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Designation:
Rojalin Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Aug-2023 18:21:01
W.P.(C). NO.30933 OF 2011
