An owner of a vehicle must demonstrate that its use in facilitating an illegal act was without their knowledge or connivance, fulfilling the burden of proof to avoid confiscation under the Odisha Forest Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State-Opposite Parties.

2. Present writ petition is directed against the order of learned District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority dated 14.11.2014 at Annexure- 6 passed in F.A. No.24 of 2013 thereby confirming the confiscation order of the Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Dhenkanal Forest Division, Dhenkanal dated 11.03.2013.

3. The fact of the case is that, present Petitioner is the owner of the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-02-AV-8957 (hereinafter referred as “the vehicle”) which was detected by the Police of Motonga Police Station during night patrolling on 12.08.2012 as loaded with 60 bundles of Kendu leaves unauthorizedly/illegally and transporting the same without having valid documents thereof.

4. The vehicle was seized by Motonga Police and Motonga P.S. FIR No.123 dated 12.08.2012 was registered for commission of offence under Section 379 /411 of the I.P.C. and Section 14 of the Kendu Leaves (Control and Trade) Act. It is submitted that said Police case is now at the stage of trial and pending before the court at Dhenkanal.

5. A confiscation proceeding, i.e. OR Case No.36-D of 2012-13, was accordingly initiated by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Dhenkanal Division in terms of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act. The Petitioner was noticed and after hearing both parties, the Authorized Officer has directed for confiscation of the vehicle vide order dated 11.03.2013. Against said order of the Authorized Officer, the Petitioner preferred F.A. No.24 of 2013 before learned District Judge, Dhenkanal and the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 14.11.2014 confirmed the order of confiscating authority. Both the orders of the Authorized Officer as well as the Appellate Authority under Annexures-4 and 6 respectively are challenged in present writ petition before this Court.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the authorities without satisfaction of the fact that the vehicle was used without the knowledge of the owner have directed for confiscation of the same and the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the same. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that, she being the owner of the vehicle was completely unaware of the alleged illegal transportation of the Kendu leaves in the vehicle since she has engaged the driver for carrying the passenger on rent to Deogarh on that day and as the vehicle did not return on the next day, upon enquiry she came to know about alleged involvement of the vehicle in such offences.

7. Mr. Pradhan, learned A.S.C., on the other hand submits that the driver, who was arrested at the time of seizure of the vehicle by Motonga Police, did not disclose anything regarding the connivance or knowledge of the owner thereof for transporting illegal Kendu leaves, but has admitted to have deliberately transporting the Kendu leaves in the vehicle illegally. The later story developed by the driver that he was forced by some unknown person to carry those 60 bundles of Kendu leaves in the vehicle is completely unbelievable and no material is produced in that respect.

8. Upon hearing both parties and going through the records, it is seen that three witnesses on behalf of the prosecution Viz. P.W.1, 2 and 3 were examined in addition to the seizure list and other relevant documents, whereas two witnesses Viz. D.W.1 and 2 were examined by the Petitioner in support of her case without adducing any further document to substantiate her case.

9. As seen from the record, the primary contention of the P