The owner of a vehicle bears the burden of proof to demonstrate lack of knowledge or connivance in illegal transportation of forest produce, with confiscation serving a preventive function under environmental law.

Judgment :

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.OR-02-BV-8139 which is alleged to have been seized due to unauthorized transportation of forest produces, has challenged the judgment/order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Puri Wild Life Division, Puri vide Annexure-1 and also the judgment dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri in FAO No.04/76 of 2016/2015.

(i) FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 2nd November, 2013, during the course of patrolling duty near Sukal Chhack area, the staff of Bramhagiri Wildlife Range and Balukhanda Wildlife Range noticed the aforesaid vehicle moving in a suspicious manner. The goods loaded in the trolley of the said vehicle were found covered with a polythene sheet. Entertaining suspicion regarding the nature of the goods, the patrolling staff detained the vehicle and conducted a search thereof. Upon such search, it was revealed that the vehicle was loaded with approximately 30 quintals of green casuarina firewood. The driver of the said vehicle was thereupon asked to produce valid documents authorizing transportation of the aforesaid forest produce. However, instead of complying, the driver absconded from the spot, abandoning the vehicle along with its load.

(ii) Accordingly, the Forester, Bramhagiri Wildlife Range, seized the aforesaid vehicle along with the forest produce loaded therein, in the presence of independent witnesses available at the spot, preparing due seizure list as per law. Since the driver of the said vehicle had absconded from the scene, the Petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, was implicated in respect of the offences alleged. Consequent upon such seizure, a confiscation proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the relevant forest laws.

(iii) During the course of adjudication of the aforesaid Confiscation Proceeding, the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, in discharge of his quasi-judicial function and with the avowed object of eliciting the veracity of the allegations while ensuring due adherence to the procedural imperatives engrafted under the statutory scheme, was pleased to delineate the following issues for determination, which formed the substratum of the enquiry:—

a. Whether the procedural formalities and statutory preconditions contemplated under the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 were scrupulously observed and duly complied with in the submission of the Prosecution Report, or whether any deviation vitiated the process?

b. Whether the articles and materials seized in the instant case, on proper scrutiny, would fall within the ambit of the expression “forest produce” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972?

c. Whether the vehicle in question, to wit, TATA 407 bearing Registration No. OR-02-BV-8139, was demonstrably employed in the commission of the alleged forest offence, thereby attracting the confiscatory jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer?

d. Whether the said infraction was perpetrated with the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the registered owner, or with the knowledge and participation of his agent or the person-in-charge of the vehicle, and further, whether the persons so connected had exercised such reasonable diligence and precautionary measures as could exonerate them from liability under the governing statutory framework?

(iv) Accordingly, the authority concerned i.e. the Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Puri Wild Lif