W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Premalata Biswal …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. A. Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. R. Pradhan, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 5th March 2026 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. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 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 Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle is that the vehicle was used by the driver, namely, Prasant Kumar Satpathy (D.W.2) without the knowledge of the Petitioner for transporting those alleged Kendu leaves in the vehicle on the eventful night. The statement as made by D.W.1–the Petitioner, that she has warned the driver while sending the same on rent to Deogarh not to use or indulge in any illegal activities and despite the same the driver (D.W.2) indulged it in such alleged Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 illegal transportation of Kendu leaves. Such statement of the owner- Petitioner is supported by the driver during his evidence and he has admitted that the owner while handing over the vehicle has warned him not to indulge the same in any illegal activities. 10. The seizure of the vehicle by Motonga Police finding the same loaded with 60 bundles of illegal Kendu leaves without any valid document is not disputed by the Petitioner. However, the same is the subject-matter of decision in the criminal case which is stated to be pending as on date for trial. 11. Sub-Section (2-c) of Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act (in short, “the Act”) stipulates that in addition to grant of opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, the owner of the vehicle has the right to contend that such vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance in committing such offences provided that he has taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. Sub-Section (2- c) of Section 56 of the Act reads as follows:- “(2-c) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2-b) no order of confiscation under Sub-section (2-a) of any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that it was used without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the tool rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle, in Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.” 12. A bare perusal of such provision reveals that the onus lies on the owner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance in committing such offences and that he had taken all such reasonable and necessary precautions against such use of the vehicle. 13. As stated in the case at hand by the owner during her evidence before the Authorized Officer, that, she has repeatedly warned the driver of the vehicle while handing over the same not to use the vehicle or indulge it in any illegal activities while the vehicle was given on rent to carry passenger to Deogarh and return. The facts further show that the driver himself has admitted in his evidence about such caution given by the owner to him. 14. Admittedly, the vehicle was detected with loaded Kendu leaves in the dead of night by Motonga Police personnel and thus it reveals that the vehicle was used by the driver while returning from Deogarh in the night. The statement of the driver (D.W.2) to the effect that he was compelled by four unknown persons to carry such Kendu leaves Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 bundles may not be a conceivable fact to be accepted, but that is a different question altogether. Whether the driver is speaking truth or he is deliberately suppressing anything is a different fact than the knowledge of the owner. The owner when admittedly cautioned the driver before handing over the vehicle to not use the same in any illegal activity, which is admitted by driver itself during his evidence, then the same can be termed as reasonable and necessary precaution taken by the owner. It remains undisputed that at the time of seizure, the owner was not present in the vehicle. It was the driver, who was found with the vehicle, loaded with Kendu leave bundles. Therefore, by stating so the owner has satisfied her burden that the vehicle was used without her knowledge in transporting the Kendu leave bundles. This aspect of the case has not been dealt with in detail by the learned Appellate Authority and he by simply saying that the owner has failed to discharge his burden with regard to use of the vehicle without his knowledge or by failing to produce any document in that respect. Further, if the driver would be found to have stated falsehood, no liability can thereof be shouldered on the owner to conclude that she had the knowledge or connivance with the driver in transporting those illegal Kendu leaves or commission of such offences. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2026 16:48:01 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No.24197 of 2014 15. In view of the discussions made above, it is found that the owner has satisfactorily discharged her burden that the vehicle was used without her knowledge or connivance in committing such offence and at the same time by precautioning the driver has discharged the burden on herself to not use the vehicle in commission of offences. As a result of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the orders of the Authorized Officer under Annexure-4 and the Appellate Authority under Annexure-6 are quashed. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary