Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(46) Section 56 (2a) - District Judge having jurisdiction in the area has to decide the appeal and not the Sessions Judge - He may be holding both the posts, but in order to avoid future complications he has to dispose of the appeal as a District Judge, As per the interpretation of Sub-Sec. (2-e) of Sec. 56, the District Judge alone is competent to deal in the appeal - Therefore a case (appeal) disposed of by another Judge is illegal - 1992(II) OLR-300. (47) Section 56(2) - Bags of Kendu leaves was detected at Sambalpur booked for Bombay - This, amounting to inter - district movement, provisions of Sec. 56(2) attracted. It was held in a recent decision (i.e. State of Odisha Vrs. Kiran Sankar Panda - 71 (1991) CLT-187) it was held that if a forest offence is committed with the knowledge or connivance of the driver or the owner of 41 the vehicle, such vehicle is liable for confiscation, even if the owner might have no knowledge or connivance - It was further pointed out in order to avoid confiscation it must further be proved that each of the concerned persons had taken all reasonable and necessary pre-caution against the same - 1992(1) OLR-305. (48) Section 56(2) - The petitioner’s truck was found Kendu leaf bags at Noohi bahal check gate in the district of Sambalpur - The vehicle was driven by the petitioner himself - The documents produced by the petitioner was suspected by the Forest Official, who contacted the Range Officer and by the time the Range Officer arrived, the petitioner had left the truck and disappeared. Later on, the document was found to be forged and it was confirmed that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of Kendu Leaves. This led to confiscation proceeding ending against the petitioner and his appeal was also rejected. It was directed to release the vehicle on payment of a fine of Rs.60,000.00 in cash - 1992(1) OLR-305, AIR 1992 Odisha-287. (49) Section 56(2-a) - One Biswanath Behera was found to be carrying timber valued at Rs.5000.00 which was concealed under sand in a tractor - tractory, being driven by petitioner No. 2, which revealed illicit transport of timber with the knowledge of the petitioner - In such a situation, the tractor-trailer is liable for confiscation - The Court held that on perusal of records, it is seen that the said vehicle was involved in an earlier case regarding commission of forest offence, for which no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to explain his position with regard to the same - On this point the matter was remitted to the authorised officer for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct with regard to the said charge - 1990 (II) OLR-318. (50) Sec. 56(2-a) - Ms empowers the District Judge alone to deal with appeal - Appeal disposed of by the Sessions Judge without Jurisdiction- such order was set aside and District Judge was directed to hear and dispose of the same - (1991)4 OCR-585. (51) Sec. 56(2-a) - Vehicle confiscated on a finding by the authorised officer that forest offence was committed - In his presence and in presence of the enquiry officer, statement was recorded - There was no violation of the rule of Natural Justice in view of clear provisions - (1990) 3 OCR-518; AIR 1984 SC-1356; AIR 1973 SC-2701; AIR 1985 SC-85. (52) It is well-settled that when an authority passes an order within his competence, it cannot fail only because it purports to have been made under a wrong provision, if it can be within its power under any other rule and that the worth of an order should be Judged on a due consideration of its substance and not the form - AIR 1950 SC -232; AIR 1954 SC -1929; (1994) 7 OCR-765 (FB). (53) Section 56(2-c), 56(2-e) - Vehicle carrying 93 bundles of kendu leaves unauthorisedly seized - Order of confiscation passed - Appeal before District Judge was dismissed - Writ - Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized which is liable to confiscation is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act - In the instant 42 case, the petitioner had given the vehicle to his driver, who admittedly himself knowingly used the vehicle for commission of forest offence - Petitioner cannot escape the liability of confiscation as his driver, who was the agent-in-charge of the vehicle, knowingly used the same for commission of forest offence : 2010 (I) OLR 716 : (2010) 45 OCR 603 : 109 (2010) CLT 388. (54) Sec. 56, 56 (2-d) empowers the Conservator of Forests to call for and examine the records of a case in which confiscation order was made by the authorised officer within thirty days from the date of such order and may make or cause to be made such enquiry and there after pass necessary orders. The Conservator is not vested with any appellate power, but it is in the nature of supervisory or revisional power, under which the Conservator may call for and examine records within twenty (20) days from the order made by the authorised officer, it can be done suo motu or on an application - Therefore when the authorised officer has ordered release of seized goods/vehicles on payment of fine, it becomes an order of ‘non-confiscation’ and appeal in such a case shall lie to the District Judge and Conservator of Forest’s appellate power is without jurisdiction - AIR 1999 Odisha - 37. (55) Jeep seized for illegal transportation of hand-sawn sal wood in violation of Rules 4, 12 and 21 of the Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 - Confiscation Order - Fact of seizure was admitted - Order of confiscation, makes out a case of without any valid transit permit- The fact that it was neither within his knowledge, nor within the knowledge of the driver, could not be proved by the petitioner - Such order of confiscation does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or Jurisdictional error - 2005(1) OLR-132. (56) Section 56 and Section 2(g) - Transit Permit Rules 2(1) (a) and 5(1)(i) and Rule 21 - Kendu leaves, being a forest produce, cannot be taken out of the district limit - Without a transit permit - Kendu leaves in the instant case, was transported without permit - Confiscation of vehicle upheld, after appreciation of evidence - 1998(15) OCR-58. (57) Even if the owner might not have any knowledge or connivance in the matter, if the offence is committed with the knowledge or connivance of the driver of the vehicle, the same would be liable for confiscation - The view that connivance of the driver would be a separate matter to be decided in a separate proceeding is erroneous - 71(1991) CLT-157. (58) When, in exercise of the powers under Sec. 56 of the Odisha Forest Act any forest produce along with the vehicle for committing any forest offence is seized the power to release such property lies with the prescribed authority and not with the Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under the provisions of Cr.P.C. - 57(1984) CLT-381; AIR 1986 SC-328; 1984 Cr.L.J.-984. (59) Confiscation of truck involved in the commission of forest officer- Authorities failed to establish the mensrea of the owner of the truck involved in the commission of such offence - High Court set-aside the order of confiscation on the basis of evidence on record - Not interfered by the Apex Court (1998) 14 OCR (SC)-185. 43 (60) Prosecution report filed before S.D.J.M. after timber was seized by Forest Department Officer - For interim custody of the seized timber petitioner filed application - General provisions with regard to Sec. 451 and 457 are applicable and Sec. 57 of O.F.A. is no bar - (1992) 5 OCR-