1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to
Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Athagarh in O.R. Case No.91(B)17-18
Leyland Pick-up Van (Reg. No. OD05V 4382) from seizure.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
(i) The petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland Pick-up Van (Reg. No.
Athagarh on 01.03.2019 in F.A.O. No. 7/2018.
Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and issued notice to the petitioner. Prosecution
including the driver, Gram Panchayat Sarapanch, and VSS President.
confiscation; Appellate Court dismissed appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
(ii) The vehicle was stationary at the time of seizure, not proved to be used
in transporting forest produce; no evidence of removal from forest land.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
(iii) Prosecution witnesses gave contradictory versions (driver absent vs
driver fled) and failed to establish source of seized ballahs or their
character as "forest produce."
(iv) Defence evidence (driver and villagers) consistently stated that the
ballahs were old, belonged to local committees, and were forcefully
loaded for community use.
(v) Authorized Officer and Appellate Court ignored defence evidence and
relied only on official seizure witnesses; such reliance is perverse.
(vi) Without proving forest origin or illegal transit, the confiscation order is
unsustainable; confiscation outcome is vulnerable and liable to be
quashed.
III. JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE LOWER COURT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Authorized Officer, Athagarh confiscated the Ashok Leyland Pick-
up Van (OD-05-V-4382) and the forest produce on 21.07.2018; the
appellant-owner challenged the order before the lower appellate court.
(ii) Forest officials (PWs 1-6) consistently deposed that on 07.11.2017 at
about 8 p.m., while on patrolling duty, they found the vehicle
parked/coming on the PMGSY road, loaded with 30 Sal ballahs and 5
Sisoo phalis; the driver fled from the spot; no outsider was present; the
vehicle carried no transit permit.
(iii) The owner (DW-5) claimed he was in Delhi for treatment at the relevant
time and had instructed his driver not to misuse the vehicle; the driver
(DW-1) and other defence witnesses (DW-2 to DW-4) deposed that the
villagers forcibly loaded the wooden poles belonging to the Puja
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
Committee, which had been collected after the 2014 cyclone and earlier
used for Durga Puja.
(iv) The court disbelieved the defence version, noting absence of supporting
documents: no treatment papers proving the owner's stay in Delhi, no
FIR lodged regarding forcible loading, no proof that DW-1 was engaged
as driver or paid salary, and no record showing the poles were with the
village committee.
(v) The court held that PWs 1-5 were independent public officials with no
enmity towards the owner; their testimony of seizure and flight of
driver was credible; no reason existed for false implication.
(vi) The court observed that defence evidence was only oral and
unsupported by documentary proof; precaution against misuse of the
vehicle was not established; the plea of absence of knowledge or
connivance was not proved.
(vii) On appreciation of evidence, the court found no illegality or perversity
in the confiscation order of the Authorized Officer; concluded the
vehicle was used for commission of forest offence; rejected the
appellant's contentions.
(viii) The appeal was dismissed on contest, holding the confiscation legal,
justified, and not liable to be set aside.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the
documents placed before this Court.
6. Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 empowers the Authorized
Officer to confiscate any forest produce, along with tools or vehicles, if
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
he has reasons to believe that a forest offense has been committed. Such
confiscation is a civil action in rem and independent of criminal
prosecution, aimed at protecting forests by immediately disabling the
instruments of the offense. Notably, the statutory scheme places a
stringent burden on the vehicle owner to avoid confiscation. The owner
must affirmatively prove that the vehicle was used without his
knowledge or connivance and that all due precautions were taken to
prevent its misuse. Mere assertions of innocence by the owner do not
suffice; the law requires credible evidence to substantiate the lack of
knowledge and the exercise of due care. In other words, the owner's
liability in such forest-offense cases is almost absolute, it is not enough
to simply suggest an innocent explanation on a balance of probabilities.
7. This strict approach has been endorsed by the Supreme Court to ensure
that forest laws are not undermined by leniency. As observed in State
of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan1 , vehicles involved in forest offenses
should ordinarily not be returned until all proceedings (including
confiscation) conclude, barring exceptional circumstances. The relevant
excerpts are produced below:
"The forests are not only the natural wealth of the
country but also protector of human life by providing a
clean and unpolluted atmosphere. This Court is of the
considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the
allegation that it was used for committing a forest
offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a
party till the culmination of all the proceedings in
respect of such offence, including confiscatory
1 2000 (7) SCC 80
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional
reasons a court is inclined to release the vehicle during
such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be
the minimum condition. No party shall be under the
impression that release of vehicle would be possible on
easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been
involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such
easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat
commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the
forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to
come."
8. Applying the above legal principles to the facts at hand, the Court finds
no illegality or perversity in the confiscation order. The seized items (30
Sal and 5 Sisoo timber ballahs) unquestionably fall within the definition
of "forest produce." Under Section 2(g) of the Orissa Forest Act, timber
is classified as forest produce whether found in, or brought from a forest
or not. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the wood originated from a
reserved forest or was collected by villagers; its transit without a valid
permit constitutes a forest offense. The prosecution evidence establishes
that on 07.11.2017 at about 8:00 PM, forest officers discovered the
petitioner's pickup van loaded with substantial timber but carrying no
transit permit. The official witnesses (PWs 1-5), who are disinterested
public officials with no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner, gave a
consistent account: the vehicle was found on a public road by the forest
beat, laden with freshly sawn Sal and Sisoo logs, and the driver fled
upon the officers' approach. Their testimonies regarding the seizure and
the absence of any permit or documentation for the wood have
remained unshaken in cross-examination. Minor discrepancies, such as
whether the driver was absent or fled, do not detract from the core fact
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
that the vehicle was being used to hold and transport forest produce
illegally. Mere parking of the vehicle at the time of seizure does not
exempt it from the offense, the very act of unauthorized possession and
transit-preparation of timber on a public road without license is a
breach of the forest law.
9. The defence put forth by the petitioner is unconvincing and
unsupported by credible evidence. Though he claimed to be in Delhi,
no medical records or proof of precautionary measures were produced.
The plea of "forcible loading" by villagers is implausible: no inventory
or record of the timber stock was shown, no FIR was lodged about the
alleged coercion, and it is unlikely villagers would transport
community wood late at night in such a manner. The driver and
villagers' testimony, being self-serving and inconsistent, was rightly
disbelieved. By contrast, the seizure witnesses' account is coherent,
supported by the discovery of timber without permit, and carries the
presumption of regularity. No mala fides of forest officials are
established.
10. The petitioner has failed to discharge the statutory burden to prove that
the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance, or that due
diligence was exercised to prevent misuse. Mere denial or blaming
villagers is insufficient. No documentary proof of precautions or
independent supervision was produced, and the driver's testimony,
being aligned with the owner, lacks credibility. The circumstances
instead point to the owner's consent or negligence, which is fatal to his
case.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTACK
11. On overall consideration, this Court finds the confiscation of the vehicle
and timber legal and justified. The Authorized Officer had sufficient
reason to believe an offence was committed, the procedure of notice and
hearing was followed, and no violation of the 1980 Rules is shown. The
concurrent findings are neither perverse nor irrational. In line with
binding precedents, the Petitioner's failure to exonerate himself leaves
no ground for interference.
12. The Writ Petition is dismissed and the confiscation order affirmed; the
authorities may proceed in accordance with law.
13. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
