The petitioner failed to establish that his vehicle was used without his knowledge, as required by Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, demonstrating insufficient proof of diligence against misuse.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in F.A.O. No.1 of 2025.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 06.02.2022, at about 4.30 PM, the complainant, Prasant Kumar Karjee, Forester, Khalikote, while on patrolling duty along with Manoj Sethi, Forest Guard, and Babi Pallei of the Forest Protection Squad, intercepted a white-coloured Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. OD-33AD-8793 on National Highway No. 16 near Kespur Market on suspicion.

(ii) Upon inspection, the vehicle was found to be carrying ten Sisoo logs along with one Palo and rope. The driver of the vehicle, namely Nabin Mistri, failed to produce any valid documents authorising transportation of the said forest produce. Consequently, the vehicle along with the Sisoo logs was seized, brought to the Range Office, Khalikote, and produced before the Range Officer.

(iii) Thereafter, a case was registered against the vehicle and the driver, Nabin Mistri, vide O.R. Case No. 275 of 2021-22 of Khalikote Range, and the said accused was forwarded to the learned J.M.F.C. for judicial custody. Further, confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 were initiated in respect of the seized vehicle against the petitioner and the accused.

(iv) It is further stated that, at the time of seizure, the accused Nabin Mistri produced a gift deed, which had been handed over to him by the landowner, Smt. Hemalata Jena of village Baliajhara, District Ganjam, in favour of the Hanuman Temple Committee, Maluda. The accused claimed to be illiterate and stated that he was unaware of the requirement of a transit permit, believing the gift deed to be sufficient authorisation for transportation of the Sisoo logs from private land. He further stated that the vehicle belonged to Judhistira Sahoo.

(v) During trial, Nabin Mistri was examined as D.W.2 and reiterated that the vehicle belonged to Judhistira Sahoo and that the transportation of Sisoo logs was undertaken without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s case that Judhistira Sahoo had informed him on 06.02.2022 that he was proceeding to Bhubaneswar for carrying goods. When the petitioner did not find the vehicle parked in front of his house in the evening, attempts were made to contact Judhistira Sahoo, which proved unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have lodged an F.I.R. at Baidyanath Police Station, though the same was not registered.

(vi) It is further stated that after about ten days, the petitioner came to know that the vehicle had been seized by the Forest Department and that a notice dated 21.05.2022 was issued to him after verification of ownership from the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar-II. The petitioner was examined as D.W.1 in the proceeding.

(vii) After recording the statement of the accused, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Prasant Kumar Karjee, Forester, Khalikote Section. In the course of the enquiry, on 17.03.2022, the Enquiry Officer visited village Baliajhara to verify the genuineness of the gift deed and found the same to be genuine. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to village Maluda to verify the statement of the accused, where the priest of Hanuman Temple, who were witnesses to the gift deed, were examined. The statements of Gadadhar Das, Digambar Das, and Pradip Kumar Das were recorded, which corroborated the version of the accused. Upon completion of the enquiry, the final report was submitted befo