Natural justice principles require the right to cross-examine witnesses in confiscation proceedings, and the absence of credible evidence of illegal operation invalidates confiscation under the relevant statute.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in FAO No. 44 of 2014, and to uphold the confiscation orders passed by the DFO and the appellate authority under the 1991 Act.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The Opposite Party (owner of Kamala Saw Mill) was granted a license in 1995, which was renewed periodically until 2005. On 18.04.2005, the license was revoked by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) on the ground that the saw mill was located within a prohibited distance of forest areas.

(ii) On 23.06.2006, a raid was conducted at the saw mill premises by the Cuttack Forest Range staff and Vigilance Wing officials. During the raid, one old 1 HP motor, some sawdust (quantity recorded variously as 1/2 kg and 2.5 kg), and a circular saw fitted on a table were found. The Forest Department’s version records the presence of Chakunda logs and alleges active sawing, while the Opposite Party contends that no logs were seized and the saw mill was not in running condition, with no electricity connection.

(iii) Based on the raid, a forest offence case (OR No. 66 of 2006–07) was booked under provisions of the Orissa Saw Mill & Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, alleging illegal operation of a saw mill without a valid license.

(iv) An inquiry was conducted: for the prosecution, the Forest Range Officer and the Forester of Salipur Section deposed that Chakunda logs were being cut in the saw mill; for the defence, an employee (Durga Charan Mohanty) stated that the sawdust came from purchased firewood and not from sawing of logs.

(v) The Licensing Authority-cum-DFO, Bhubaneswar, by order dated 29.08.2009, directed confiscation of the seized articles. On appeal, the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Bhubaneswar Circle, upheld the order on 13.03.2014.

(vi) Meanwhile, the Opposite Party had separately challenged the revocation of its saw mill license in W.P.(C) No. 9320/2006. By order dated 26.06.2006, the Orissa High Court set aside the earlier appellate order of the Conservator of Forests, directed rehearing by another authority, and noted that the saw mill was not operational at that time.

(vii) In FAO No. 44 of 2014, the District Judge, Cuttack, by order dated 30.04.2016, set aside both the confiscation order of the DFO and the appellate order. The District Judge noted contradictions in seizure records, absence of logs in seizure lists, lack of electricity connection, and the denial of cross-examination opportunity to the Opposite Party.

(viii) The State has now filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge dated 30.04.2016, while the Opposite Party maintains that the order was passed after proper appreciation of evidence and that the raid materials do not establish illegal operation.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

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

(i) The District Judge ignored the testimony of the defence witness (Durga Charan Mohanty) which itself admitted that the Opposite Party was dealing in sawn firewood purchased from elsewhere, indirectly supporting that saw dust was linked to mill activity.

(ii) The Judge overlooked the deposition of prosecution witnesses (Range Officer and Forester), who clearly testified that Chakunda sizes and sawdust were found near the circular sa