Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Niranjan Nayak .... Opposite Party (S) on 11 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 16317 of 2011
Along with
CONTC No.697 of 2011
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
(In W.P.(C) No. 16317 of 2011)
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
(In CONTC No.697 of 2011)
Niranjan Nayak .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Surdarsan Behera, Divisional Forest .... Opposite Party (s)/
Officer, Athagarh Forest Division, Contemnor
Athagarh
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik,
Advocate
For Opposite Party (s)/ : Mrs. J. Sahoo,
Contemnor Additional Standing Counsel
Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-02.04.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
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.
2. The Petitioner (Niranjan Nayak) has filed the CONTC for non-
compliance 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.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(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.
(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.
(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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
reportedly escorted the fleeing vehicle and obstructed the forest officials
from continuing the chase.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
II. FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT:
4. The District Judge, Cuttack passed an order on 02.12.2010. The findings
of the Court is produced below:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
information about whether the vehicle had a registration number plate
at the time of seizure.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(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 re-
evaluation 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.
(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.
(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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
6. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(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.
(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.
(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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
(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.
(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.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
7. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
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.
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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Instead, legal principles emphasize the preservation and safeguarding
of seized property, not its unnecessary decay.
11. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v.
State of Gujarat1 , unequivocally held as follows:
"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."
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:
"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.
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)."
(2002) 10 SCC 283.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13370/2024.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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.
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.
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.
16. 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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
further delay would be to dignify inertia and disguise wastefulness as
vigilance.
VI. CONCLUSION:
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.
18. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The Writ
Petition stands dismissed.
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.
20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th April, 2025/
