Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(9) Section 56 - Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act - Sec. 13 - Odisha Timber other Forest Produce Transit Rule Rules - 21 - Cognizance of offence under - Submission that Sec. 56 of the Odisha Forest Act and Sec. 13 of Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act not being penal section, the Court below ought not have taken cognizance against the petitioner under those sections - Held, those two sections are not penal sections - Cognizance taken thereunder is quashed - Order taking cognizance under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rules passed by the Trial Court is confirmed : 2007 (ll) OLR 97 : (2007) 37 OCR 349 : CLT (2007) Supp. Crl. 558. (10) Section 56 - Confiscation - No notice given to owner before confiscation - Matter raised before Authorised Officer and appellate authority - Said question not considered in its proper perspective - Writ - Held, no proper notice was given to the petitioner before the vehicle was directed to be confiscated - Confiscation proceeding set aside - Direction issued : 2006 (ll) OLR 78 : (2006) 34 OCR 712. (11) Section 56 - Confiscation of vehicle - Vehicle in question was involved in commission of a forest offence - Requirement of section casts a burden on the owner to prove to the contrary and the findings arrived at by the lower courts clearly indicate that neither the Authorised Officer nor the appellate authority were satisfied by the evidence led by the owner - Held, a forest offence has been committed - No further consideration - Order passed by the Authorised Officer and the appellate authority 32 confirmed : 2006 (Supp.- II) OLR 346 : (2006) 35 OCR 558. (12) Section 56 - Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 - Rules 4, 12 and 14 - Vehicle seized for carrying sal leaves - Confiscation proceedings - Writ - Any person who collects sal leaves which are found outside the forest and does not bring leaves from the forest does not commit any offence - Vehicle was intercepted on the main road and there is no allegation by the prosecution that the vehicle was carrying leaves which were collected from the forest - Held, sal leaves seized from the petitioner’s vehicle cannot be treated as forest produce - Confiscation proceeding in the present case cannot be upheld : 2006 (II) OLR 109 : (2006) 34 OCR 641 : 102 (2006) CLT 65 : 2006 Cri.L.J. 3718 (Ori.). (13) Section 56 - Transportation of mango planks - No valid document or Timber Transit Permit for transporting such planks - Order of confiscation - District Judge on appeal by O.P. No. 1 imposed fine instead of confiscation of the seized truck - Writ - When subject of confiscation is found liable for confiscation, then in absence of specific provision in the statute, a Court cannot allow release of such articles on payment of fine - Provision of law in the section does not provide for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation - Order of District Judge being illegal and contrary to the Statutory provision, the same is set aside and order of confiscation of the Authorised Officer is maintained : 2006 (Supp.-I) OLR 920 : (2006) 34 OCR 714. (14) Section 56 - Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules (1980), Rule 4 - Forest Offence - Alleged transportation of kendu leaves without T.T. Permit - Claim of dept. of alleged transportation supported by statement of driver and other documents on record and never refuted by owner of vehicle - Case for violation of Rule 4 of T.T. Rules thus established - Mere non-examination of Police Officer, who initially seized truck or non-mentioning details of allegations in notice to petitioner - Would be of no consequence : 2006 Cri.L.J. 1337 (Ori.) : 2005 (Supp.) OLR 921. (15) Section 56(2) - Truck found carrying processed kendu leaves without valid documents and T.T. permit - Confiscation proceedings - Confiscation order passed - Appeal before District Judge dismissed - Writ - In a proceeding under the Sec., the Department has to simply show prima facie materials indicating involvement of the concerned vehicle in a forest offence - If such onus is discharged by the Department, then the burden shifts on the owner of the vehicle to establish that he had no knowledge or connivance in commission of the forest offence and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against misuse of the vehicle by the driver or his agent - In the present case facts / statement shows that driver had been authorised to transact the business of the truck during the absence of the owner - Once this was established and once the petitioner offered no evidence to show that he had taken reasonable and necessary precaution against use of vehicle in any illegal work, the protection provided under Sec. 56 Sub-Sec (2-c) was not available - Sec. 56(2) of the Act nowhere contemplates that fine can be imposed in lieu of confiscation of the offending vehicle : 2005 (Supp.) OLR 921 : (2005) 32 OCR 372. 33 (16) Section 56 - Odisha Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 - Rule - 4 - Vehicle seized by the Forest Officials alongwith timbers for violation of the provisions - Order of confiscation of vehicle as also the timbers to the State - Plea of petitioner that the driver due to threat at the point of Bhujali loaded the timbers - Held, no material with regard to threat - No report lodged before the Police - No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the driver did not do so - Petitioner to substantiate his stand has examined no independent witness - No cogent reason to interfere : 2005 (Supp.) OLR 507 : CLT (2005) (Supp.) (Cri.) 226. (17) Sections 56, 64 - Procedure for confiscation against a vehicle - Confiscation not to be subject to satisfaction of any encumbrances - Claim of petitioner of hypothecation of the confiscated vehicle - Scope of - Case issue to be referred to Larger Bench : 99 (2005) CLT 38 : 2004 (II) OLR