The main legal point established is the requirement of prima facie evidence for the vehicle's involvement in a forest offence and the liability of the owner even with the driver's knowledge or connivance.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

1. The State of Orissa and its functionaries, being the petitioners, have filed this application seeking to quash judgment dated 12.12.2011 passed in FAD No. 07 of 2011 by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal vide Annexure-2 reversing the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO, Dhenkanal Forest Division, Dhenkanal in OR Case No. 80 KE of 2009-10 and directing release of the seized truck bearing registration no. OR/04/D-6551 in favour of its owner forthwith.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that on 11.02.2010 at about 9.00 P.M., while the Range Officer, Kamakhyanagar East Range, along with his staff, on getting a confidential information regarding illegal transportation of timbers from Kankadahad forest to Sukinda, was waiting for detection of the same at Batagaon chhaka, at about 3.30 A.M. night one vehicle came from Kankadahad side. When the Range Officer signaled to stop the vehicle, the driver stopped it before 50 ft. ahead. Thereafter, when the staff rushed towards the vehicle, some occupants and the driver of the vehicle went away from the spot and due to night, they could not catch hold them. During checking by the staff, it was found that the said vehicle (truck bearing registration no. OR/04/D-6551, having duplicate number plate bearing registration No. OR 19-0-7482) was loaded with 28 nos. of teak logs measuring about 3.1945 cum. On demand/interrogation, the persons sitting inside the vehicle could not be able to produce any valid document or authority in support of transportation of the timbers and confessed their guilty and admitted that the owner and driver of the seized vehicle fled away from the spot before arrival of the forest staff. On the spot, forest guard seized the vehicle, along with the timbers loaded, and prepared a seizure list. After preliminary inquiry by the forest guard, report was submitted before the Range Officer, who submitted necessary papers before the A.O.- cum-DFO, Dhenkanal Division for initiation of a confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to "Act, 1972") in respect of the offending vehicle, as it was found to be involved in commission of a forest offence.

2.1. The A.O.-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Dhenkanal conducted hearing and finally the vehicle bearing registration no. OR/04/D-6551 and the seized forest 'produce were confiscated to the Government vide order dated 18.03.2011. Against, the said order, the opposite party preferred appeal bearing FAO No. 07/2011 before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal, who, after hearing the parties, came to hold that since the inquiry, as contemplated under Rule-4 of Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to "Rules, 1980") was not carried out, resulting in depriving the opposite party herein of his asset, i.e., a truck and it was incumbent upon the authority to comply with the requirements of law and failure to do so, is fatal to the prosecution, and thus directed to release the vehicle bearing registration no. OR/04/D-6551 in favour of the owner of the vehicle forthwith. Hence this application.

3. Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the inquiry as contemplated under Rule-4 of Rules, 1980 has no application to the confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Act, 1972. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge to the extent that the provisions contained under Rule-4 of Rules, 1980, having not been carried out, the order of confiscation suffers from jurisdictional error, is absolutely an error apparent on the face of record. It is further contended that even if there is no evidence that the timbers were cut and removed from Kankadahad Forest, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that seizure of timber does not require to be made in presence of the independent witnes