The owner's liability in forest-offense cases is strict, requiring proof of non-involvement; mere denials are insufficient to overturn administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the order of confiscation dated 21.07.2018 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Athagarh in O.R. Case No.91(B)17-18 and the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Athagarh in FAO No.07 of 2018, and to release the Ashok 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:

(i) The petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland Pick-up Van (Reg. No. OD05V 4382) which was confiscated by the Authorized Officer, Athagarh on 21.07.2018; confiscation order later confirmed by ADJ, Athagarh on 01.03.2019 in F.A.O. No. 7/2018.

(ii) On 07.11.2017, forest officials during patrolling found the vehicle parked and loaded with 30 Sala ballahs, 5 Sishu ballahs, and xeroxed vehicle documents; the vehicle was seized by Forester, Gopalpur Section.

(iii) DFO, Athagarh registered a forest offence report under Section 56 of the ORISSA FOREST ACT , 1972 and issued notice to the petitioner. Prosecution examined seizure witnesses, while petitioner led defence evidence including the driver, Gram Panchayat Sarapanch, and VSS President.

(iv) Prosecution witnesses stated the vehicle was found loaded with forest produce without any transit permit; defence witnesses stated the ballahs belonged to the village committee since 2014 and were being shifted for local puja purposes.

(v) Authorized Officer accepted seizure witnesses’ version, ordered confiscation; Appellate Court dismissed appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) Confiscation is invalid as the Authorized Officer failed to record proper satisfaction or “reason to believe” under Section 56 (2)(a) of the ORISSA FOREST ACT and without holding enquiry under Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules.

(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.

(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 (