Raju Toppo vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2121 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) No. 6253 of 2023
                 Raju Toppo                            ....       Petitioner
                                  Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 State of Odisha and another             ....     Opp. Parties
                                                   Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra,
                                            Additional Government Advocate

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             14.03.2023

 1.         1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 8th August, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundargarh in FAO No.5/10 of 2016-21 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by the Petitioner against order dated 2nd March, 2016 (Annexure-2) passed by the Authorized Officer-Cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Rourkela Forest Division, Rourkela-Opposite Party No.2 in Confiscation Proceeding No.163 of 2014-15 has been dismissed.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the prosecution story as reveals from the offence report that, on 25th August, 2014 at about 10.00 PM, Forester San Ramloi, on getting information from a reliable source that a Bolero Pick up van loaded with timber coming from Luhuratoli-Jharbeda road, immediately proceeded to the spot and detained the vehicle bearing registration No.OD-14-A-2475 and seized 25 pieces of Sal sleepers. As the Driver could not produce any legal

// 2 //

document in support of transportation of such timber, he seized the vehicle as well as the timber. Accordingly, prosecution report was submitted for violation of Rules-4, 14 and 21 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules'). On the basis of the offence report, Confiscation Proceeding No.163 of 2014-15 was initiated against the aforesaid vehicle and it has been confiscated vide order dated 2nd March, 2016 (Annexure-2) passed by the Opposite Party No.2.

3.1. Petitioner being aggrieved of the order under Annexure- 2, filed appeal under Section 56(2-e) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. Learned Additional District Judge, Sundargarh, without considering the matter from its proper perspective passed the impugned order under Annexure-1. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no relationship between the Petitioner and the Driver of the offending vehicle. He has never instructed the Driver to transport the alleged Sal slipper. The alleged offence was neither committed in connivance nor with the knowledge of the Petitioner. Hence, the vehicle of the Petitioner is not liable to be confiscated. This material aspect was not taken into consideration by learned appellate Court. Hence, the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 2 are liable to be set aside.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA submits that the Driver is none other than the brother in-law of the Petitioner. Although an allegation was made by the Driver that some persons forcibly loaded Sal sleepers in the vehicle, but neither it was reported to the Police nor the same was disclosed to the forest officials at the

// 3 //

time of seizure of the vehicle. Thus, it appears that the plea of the Petitioner is only to get rid of the rigors of provisions of the Act and Rules in vogue. Both the Authorized Officer as well as learned District Judge after discussing the matter in detail directed for confiscation of the vehicle. Hence, no interference is warranted either to the order under Annexure-1 or Annexure-2.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that Driver of the offending vehicle was examined as DW-1, who is none other than brother in-law of the Petitioner. Petitioner had instructed his Brother in-law (the Driver) to return home and handover the vehicle. It is alleged that on the way two persons detained the vehicle near Bhalulata and told him that some wooden beds at Jharbeda are to be transported to Dareikela. On the way, some unknown persons forcibly loaded 25 pieces of timber in his vehicle and instructed DW-1 to transport the same. Although it is alleged that timbers were lodged forcibly in the vehicle, but no Police report was lodged either by the Petitioner or by the Driver of the offending vehicle at any point of time. The sane does not also appear to have been intimated to the forest staff at the time of seizure of the vehicle in question. Thus, the story depicted by the Petitioner is an afterthought. There is no material on record to come a conclusion that the incident was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner alleges that the incident was not within his knowledge, onus lies on him to prove the same, which he miserably failed to establish. Thus, the plea taken by the Petitioner that the Petitioner has no knowledge about the incident cannot be believed. Further, it is established that the Driver of the vehicle is none other than

// 4 //

brother in-law of the Petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that there that there is no nexus between the Petitioner and the Driver. It also appears that both the forums after discussing the materials on record in details have come to the conclusion that the vehicle in question is liable for confiscation. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders.

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

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy