Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(18) Sections 56, 64 - Confiscated vehicle - Release of sale proceeds in discharge of loan liability - When a proceeding for confiscation is undertaken, under Sec. 56 of the Act against a vehicle, at that stage, there is no debaring provision in that section or any other provision in that Act to make the order of confiscation subject to satisfaction of any encumbrances - Property confiscated under Sec. 56 shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances - Hypothecated vehicle remained as a charge for discharge of loan amount - If sale proceeds is to be released for repayment of loan, then that negatives the purpose of Section 56 inasmuch as the loanee-cum-the registered owner of the hypothecated vehicle gets the reward of repayment of his loan which otherwise would have been an additional burden on him - Order referring the issue to a Larger Bench : 2004 (II) OLR 627 : (2004) 29 (OCR) 875. (19) Vehicle confiscated under Sections 56 and 64 - sale proceeds released in discharge of loan liability - There is no debarring of provision in that section to make ten order to confiscation subject to the satisfaction of any encumbrance when proceedings for confiscation of a vehicle is undertaken under Sec. 56 of the Act - property confiscated under the said section vests with the State Government free from all encumbrance whereas hypothecated vehicle remains as a charge for discharge of the loan amount - It is an admitted benefit to the owner of the vehicle - Order referred to a larger Bench for decision - 2004(II) OLR-627. (20) Section 56 - Truck found carrying 92 pieces of teak planks - owner of the truck taking plea before authorised officer in confiscation proceeding that the illegal transportation was without her knowledge or connivance - plea not sustainable unless cogent evidence is produced - Owner of the truck would be liable for any act of commission or omission of the driver - Hon’ble Court confirmed the order of confiscation of the truck passed by the authorised officer - (2003) 23 OLR-458. (21) Confiscation of vehicle under Sec. 56 - It should be proved by the owner that the vehicle was, so used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent - Moreover, he should also prove that he and his agent had taken all reasonable precaution against commission of forest offence - In the instant case owner admitted 34 that the driver had committed the offence - 2002(II) OLR-216. (22) Section 56 - Confiscation of vehicle - Owner to prove that the same has been used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the article in question - To escape the order of confiscation it must be further proved that each of the concerned persons had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against use of the vehicle in question in respect of forest offence - In the present case owner admitting that the vehicle was managed by driver - Owner liable for any act or omission committed by driver : 2002 (II) OLR 216 : (2002) 23 OCR 458 : 94 (2002) CLT 290 : 2002 Cri.L.J. 3913 (Ori). (as amended in 1983) - Sec. 56 (before and after amendment) and sec. 57 - Distinction between prior and after amendment of Sec. 56 explained - After amendment two courses are open, one before Magistrate and another before the authorised officer - All these matter relate seizure and confiscation - Interim order as to custody for release can be made by the officer who made the order of confiscation - In the instant case the Conservator of Forests has no power to pass interim order of custody - The authorised officer can pass such order - Direction given : 2001 (I) OLR 613 : (2001) 21 OCR 111. (23) Section 56 — Though prima facie such submission may appear to be attractive, on deeper scrutiny, this cannot be accepted, Section 57 itself provides that the officer may release the property on the execution by the owner of the property, a bond for production of the property released, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which science has been made. However the expression which has been inserted by Odisha Act 9 of 1983 to the effect, and where a report of such seizure has been made to the Magistrate under Sub-Section (2) of that section, makes it clear that the power of release can be exercised only when such seizury has been made to Magistrate under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 56 and not otherwise. This becomes more clear in view of the latter portion of Sec. 57 to the effect that the property is to be released on execution by the owner of a land for production of property so released if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. In other words, where the seizure has not been reported to the Magistrate, Sec. 57, by virtue of its plain languages is not applicable. It has to be noticed that under Sec. 56(2) as it stood before amendment effected by Odisha Act of 1983, seizure was required to be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence, except where the offence was to be compounded. In other words, all seizures except where the offence was being compounded by the department, itself, were required to be reported to the Magistrate and the offences were required to be tried by him. The insertion of the expression and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-Sec. (2) of that section in Sec. 57 was found necessary in view of the amendment effected in Sec. 56(2) by Odisha Act a of 1983, where, for the first time the following was inserted in Section 56(2). (either produce the property seized before an officer not below the 35 rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification (herein after referred to as the authorised officer), or, In fact, by Odisha Act 9 of 1983, procedures relating to confiscation by the authorised officer and other provisions relating to appeal, etc. were inserted in the shape of Sec. 56 (2-a) to (2e). In other words in addition to or in lieu of question or trial by Magistrate the Act has not contemplated a separate confiscation proceeding before the Authorised Officer. After the amendment in 1983, if a seizure is made, the officer seizing such property may produce the property seized before the authorised officer and/or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Sec. 56 (2a) envisages that where such forest produce is seized by the authorised officer under Sub-Sec. (1) or is produced before him under Sub-Sec. (2) he may order confiscation of such forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, or cattle used in committing such offence, subject to other conditions as envisaged in Sub-Sections (2-b) and 2-c) being fulfilled, if Section 57 would have continued to remain as such without any amendment, the general power of release of property could have been exercised by the concerned officer as indicated in Sec. 57. However, the insertion of that section of the expression and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-Sec. (2) of that section, makes it clear that such power of release can be exercised only where the seizure is reported to the Magistrate and the property is to be released with a direction to produce the same before the Magistrate as and when required by the Magistrate, where seizure is not reported to the Magistrate and the property is produced before the Authorised Officer, such a contingency would not arise. The question would arise as to whether the property seized by the authorised officer or produced before the authorised officer can at all be released before conclusion of a confiscation proceeding before the authorised officer. It is, of course, true that in view of the interpretation already given to Section 57, the question of interim release of the property by the authorised officer before whom confiscation proceeding is pending would not be governed by Sec. 57. However, that would not prevent the authorised officer to consider giving interim release of the property or the vehicle, since it is the authorised officer who can direct confiscation other conclusion of the proceeding it can be concluded that he has got ancillary or implied power to deal with the matter relating to custody of property during pendency of the proceeding. However, where the authorised officer is already in seisin of the property, any other statutory authority envisaged under Sec. 57 cannot direct release of the property or vehicle. It was also contended that since the Conservator of Forests can exercise suo motto power of revision being moved by any person under Section 56(2d) after the order of confiscation, as a revisional authority, it must be taken that he has got power to pass any order even during the pendency of confiscation proceeding. The revisional order envisaged is Sec. 56(2a) is only confined to final order of confiscation and there is no such revisional power in respect of any other order. There cannot be any 36 dispute that the authorised officer, while acting under Sec. 56(2a) or the Conservator of Forests, while acting under Sec. 56(2-d) acts as a quasi judicial authority and the orders of such authority are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge having jurisdiction. However, this revisional jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge are relatable to final confiscation order. It is of course true that when matter comes to them either in revision or in appeal as contemplated in Sec. 56(2-d) and 56(2-e), they can pass any interim order relating to custody of the property/ vehicle or otherwise. However, it cannot be said that they have an authority while the matter is still pending before the authorised officer. In such view of the matter, it would not be proper to give a direction to give effect to the order passed by the Conservator of forests. However, the authorised officer is now directed to consider the question of interim release of the vehicle of the petitioner. It is further directed that whether interim release of the vehicle is given or not, the confiscation proceeding itself should be finalised as soon as possible. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ application is disposed of- There will be no order as to costs - (2001) 21 OCR-111. (24) Section 56 (before and after amendment) and after amendment of Sec. 56 explained — After amendment, two courses are open, one before Magistrate and another before the authorised officer - All these matters relate to seizure and confiscation - Interim order as to custody for release can be made by the officer who made the order of confiscation - In the instant case, the Conservator of Forests has no power to pass interim order of custody - The authorised officer can pass such order. If Sec. 57 would have continued to remain as such without any amendment, the general power of release of property could have been exercised by the concerned officer as indicated in Sec. 57. However, the insertion in that section of the expression (and where a report of such seizure has been made to Magistrate under Sub-Sec. (2) of that section makes it clear that such power of release can be exercised only where the seizure is reported to the Magistrate and the property is to be released with a direction to produce the same before the Magistrate as and when required by the Magistrate, where seizure is not reported to the Magistrate and the property is produced before the authorised officer, such a contingency would not arise. The question would arise as to whether the property seized by the authorised officer or produced before the authorised officer can at all be released before the authorised officer. It is of course, true that in view of the interpretation already given to Sec. 57 the question of interim release of the property by the authorised officer before whom confiscation proceeding is pending would not be governed by Sec. 57. However, that would not prevent the authorised officer to consider giving interim release of the property or vehicle since it is the authorised officer who can direct confiscation after conclusion of the proceeding, it can be concluded that he has got ancillary or implied power to deal with the matter relating to custody of the property during pendency of the proceeding. However, 37 where the authorised officer is already in seisin of the property, any other statutory authority envisaged under Sec. 57 cannot direct the release of the property or vehicle. It was also contended that since the conservator of forests can exercise suo motu power of revision, being moved by any person under Sec. 56(2-a) after the order of confiscation as a revisional authority, it must be taken that he has got power to pass any order even during the pendency of confiscation proceeding. The revisional order envisaged in Sec. 56(2-a) is only confined to final order of confiscation and there is no such revisional power in respect of any other order. There cannot be any dispute that the authorised officer, while acting under Section 56(2a) or the Conservator of Forests, while acting under Sec. 56(2-d) acts as a quasi-judicial authority and the orders of such authorities are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge, having jurisdiction. However, this revisional Jurisdiction and the appellate Jurisdiction of the District Judge are relatable to final confiscation orders. It is of course true that when matter comes to them either in revision or in appeal as contemplated in Sec. 56(2d) and 56(2-e), they can pass any interim order relating to custody of the property/vehicle or otherwise. However, it cannot be said that they have any authority while the matter is still pending before the authorised officer. In such view of the matter, it would be proper to give direction to give effect to the order passed by the Conservator of Forests. However the authorised officer is now directed to consider the question of interim release of the vehicle of the petitioner. It is further directed that whether interim release of the vehicle is given or not, the confiscation proceeding itself should be finalised as soon as possible - Subhranta Vrs. State - 2001(I) OLR-613. (25) Section 56 - Confiscation proceedings with regard to transportation of contraband forest produce - Challenged by the petitioner (owner of vehicle) on the ground that he had no knowledge of his vehicle being so used for commission of forest offence — In view of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had authorised the driver to carry woods on hire, the above plea is not tenable - More so, whether the owner or the driver had necessary knowledge or not or whether they had connived or not are all questions of disputed facts, which cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction - The order of the authorised officer directing interim release of vehicle was not interfered with - 1999 Cri.L.J.-2612 (Odisha). (26) Section 56 - Authorised Officer, the DFO made confiscation of vehicle - Necessary provision excludes mensrea as an essential condition - It must be proved by the owner of the vehicle that forest produce were carried in his vehicle with his knowledge and he had taken precaution - It is not necessary that no order of confiscation be passed on the factum of seizure of forest produce, is established - Position of law explained- the vehicle can be confiscated, even of the owner be acquitted - The scope and purpose of Rule 21 and Sec. 56 are entirely different - Principles enunciated - 1998 (15) OCR-49. 38 (27) Section 56-143 pieces of sal wood was seized from a vehicle having no transit permit - Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the owner of the vehicle should that he had authorised the driver to carry the same on hire - In this context, the plea of the owner that he had no knowledge of the same cannot be accepted - It rests on the appreciation of evidence, whether the same is sufficient to establish the case against the petitioner by the authorised officer - 1998(15) OCR-366. (28) Sections 56 - Confiscation proceedings - Power of appellate authority - Can be exercised only against “confiscation order” of authorised officer - Order of authorised officer releasing goods is a “non-confiscation order” - Appeal against - Cannot be entertained by conservator of forests : 1998 (II) OLR 646 : AIR 1999 Ori. 37. (29) Confiscation proceeding under Section 56 - On the finding that the person was found to be in illegal possession of seized forest produce authorised officer passed order of confiscation - The same was supported by other materials on record- Confiscation order upheld - 1994(7) OLR-36. (30) Section 56 - Seizure of forest produce without any hammer mark and the person possessing the same failed to produce any document for such lawful possession - Confiscation proceedings started and the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence was informed - Authorised officer is competent to place order of confiscation and not the Magistrate - Thus such confiscation order was upheld - 1994(7) OLR-36. (31) Section 56 - Police Officer seized the vehicle and not the Forest Officer Application seized the made for the release of the vehicle - It was held that the Magistrate has the Jurisdiction and power to dispose of the matter - 1988(1) OLR-116. (32) Section 56 - The petitioner was the owner of the truck, involved in a forest offence and was seized by a Police Officer - The petitioner made an application for release of the truck to the Magistrate but the Magistrate came to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction in view of the amendment of Sec. 56 of the said Act — The Court held that when a vehicle is seized by a Police Officer and not by the authorised Forest Officer and produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has got the competence to pass necessary orders for the same - 1988(II) OLR-195. (33) Confiscation of vehicle under Sub-Sec. (1) and (2a) of Sec. 56— It is necessary that the authorised officer should record his satisfaction that a forest offence has been committed while confiscating the vehicle, used in such commission - 1987 (II) OLR-169. Before making any confiscation order for any forest produce seized the authorised officer should be satisfied about such commission - Any non compliance makes the order bad in law. (34) Sections 56 and 57 — Forest Officer seized the vehicle and proceedings under Sec. 56(2a) pending authorised officer rejected the petition under Sec. 57 for interim release of the vehicle - Remedy under Secs. 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., not maintainable - 1987(II) OLR - 33. (35) Amended Section 56 — The vehicle carrying forest material was confiscated by the D.F.O. - In appeal, such confiscation order vacated- 39 Direction for prohibiting other transport contractors from carrying forest materials, alleged to be involved in offence, issued such other in without jurisdiction. The Divisional Forest Officer excluded his jurisdiction by issuing a direction that because some persons for their alleged involvement in forest offence, should not be engaged as transport contractors. Such a direction seems to be arbitrary. It has also been brought to our notice that such confiscation order has been vacated in appeal and the proceeding has not been adjudicated finally. It should be borne in mind by the forest Officers that they should act within the ambit of their jurisdiction as vested by Law 1985(1) OLR-130. (36) Seizure of vehicle along with forest produce — Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate cannot exercise power to release the same— 1984 CLR-147; 1985 Cr.L.J.-984. (37) Sections 56(2-a) - ‘Produce’ - The term ‘produce’ means the seized articles being made available to the Authorised Officer for the purpose of consideration of the matter relating to confiscation or release of the seized article in favour of bona fide claimant : 2006 (Supp.- I) OLR 490 : (2006) 34 OCR 719 : 102 (2006) CLT 344 : 2006 Cri.L.J. 3596 (Ori.) (38) Section 56(2-a) - Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 - Rule 4, 12 and 21 - Jeep seized for illegal transportation of hand sawn sal - Order of confiscation - Discussing the facts and provisions of law held, factum of seizure is an admitted fact - Case for committing a forest offence by carrying such hand sawn sal seized without valid transit permit makes out the case of the Department in support of the order of confiscation - Petitioner utterly failed to prove that his vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of the driver - Order of confiscation does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error : 2005 (I) OLR 132 : 2005 Cri.L.J. 1928 (Ori.). (39) Section 56(2-a) Forest Office Violation of Rules 4, 5, 12 of Odisha Timber Transit Rules, 1980 - Illegal transportation of forest products - Confiscation of vehicle involved - price of seized articles calculated at Rs.10,000/-. For release of vehicle fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed - (Mrs.) Sailabala Bock and others Vrs. The Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar and others - 95(2003) CLT-261. (40) Vehicle to be produced as and when required by the Authorised officer or by the Magistrate trying the offence in the confiscation proceeding or the trial of the offence - Vehicle to be released on furnishing of cash and property security and a bond in terms of the section - 2003(I) OLR-530. (41) Sections 56 and 64 - Read with Odisha State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Section 29 - Truck hypothecated by O.S.F.C. seized by forest officials confiscation under the Forest Act, Held when a proceeding for confiscation is undertaken under Section 56 of the Act against a vehicle for committing any forest offence at that stage, there is no debarring provision in that section or any other provision in that Act to 40 make of confiscation subject to satisfaction of any encumbrances. Property confiscated under Section 56 shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, in the context of claim of the petitioner of hypothecation of the confiscated vehicle the provision in Section 56 has to be read together with provision in Sub-Section (2) of Section 64 of the Act - (2004) 29 OCR-875; 2004(II) CLR-627. (42) Section 56(2-a) - Confiscation proceeding under - Confiscation order confirmed in appeal - Writ petition challenging the proceeding and the appellate order - Appreciation of evidence on record by the writ court - Held, no illegality done by the authorised officer - 93 (2002) CLT-498. (43) Section 56(2-a) - Order of confiscation - Not free from encumbrances Loan advanced by O.S.F.C. keeping the vehicle confiscated on a charge - O.S.F.C. has a right to recover the same, treating the loan as public demand - 93 (2002) CLT - 499. (44) Section 56 (2-a) - Truck purchased on availing loan from Odisha State Financial Corporation - Truck used for the purpose of illegally transporting forest produce - Truck under proceedings of the Act, directed to be confiscated - O.S.F.C. dues remained unpaid - Whether O.S.F.C. would be deprived of getting their money ? - State Financial Corporation an instrumentality of the State - Facts stated on recovery of dues when co-lateral security available and when loan amount treated as a charge - Loan advanced can be treated as a public demand as per O.P.D.R. Act and being treated as a charge, any confiscation of the vehicle shall be subject to the charge of O.S.F.C. : 2002 (I) OLR 331 : 93 (2002) CLT 498 : AIR 2002 Ori. 130. (45) Provisions under Section 56, Sub-Sections 2(a), 2(d), 2(e) and 2(4) explained - Order in case of confiscation or non-confiscation is appealable to the District Judge - The conservator of forest has got no appellate power against an order of non-confiscation under Sub-Section 2(a) - He can call for record of the case for examination, in case of confiscation made by the authorised officer - That power can be exercised suo motu or on an application - The impugned order, in the instant case quashed and the order of authorised officer confirmed 1998 (15) OCR-