PRADIP MOHANTY, J & B.K.PATEL, J. W.P.(C) NOS.4271 & 9251 OF 2007 (Decided on 20.10.2011) STATE OF ORISSA ………Petitioner. .Vrs. PRAMOD KUMAR SAHU & ANR. ………Opp.Parties. ORISSA FOREST ACT, 1972 (ACT NO.14 OF 1972 ) – S.56. For Petitioner - Mr. S.D. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel M/s. C.Ananda Rao, A.K.Rath & S.K.Behera. For Opp.Party - M/s. Savitri Ratho, M.Kr. Das, Mahendra Kr. Das & K.C.Ratho. B. K. PATEL, J. In W.P.(C) No. 4271 of 2007 the State has assailed legality of judgment dated 8.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Angul allowing F.A.O. No. 1 of 2007 and setting aside the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Authorized Officer-Cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Athamalik Division in C.P. Case No. 4 of 2006-2007, arising out of O.R. Case No. 1-A of 2006-2007 by which seized truck belonging to opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the owner’) along with sized wood were confiscated. In W.P.(C) No. 9251 of 2007 the owner has made prayer to direct the opposite party/forest officials to release the seized truck in view of judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Angul in F.A.O. No. 1 of 2007. Therefore, the above writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together. 2. At about 4 A.M. on 17.4.2006 one Chittaranjan Pradhan, forester of Athamallik along with other forest officials detained the seized truck near Gandhi Chhak of Athamallik while the driver of the truck was transporting personal belongings of one Ramesh Chandra Bhutia consequent upon his transfer. It is alleged, on search, 30 pieces of size wood and planks of different sizes were found to be transported without authority. Consequently, proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) was initiated. After enquiry, in course of which evidence was adduced from both sides, the Authorized Officer passed order of confiscation of truck and wood in question. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer, the owner preferred FAO No.1 of 2007. On reappraisal of evidence on record, upon reference to rival contentions, the Additional District Judge, Angul observed that owner’s plea that the seized truck was transporting personal effects of abovesaid Ramesh Chandra Bhutia gets support from not only the evidence adduced on behalf of the owner but also by the evidence of some of the witnesses examined on behalf of Forest Department. It was observed that before transporting his personal belongings, Ramesh Chandra Bhutia had obtained permission from the Range Officer to transport the furniture. In passing the order of confiscation the Authorized Officer acted more like of a forest official than an independent authority contrary to principle laid down in State –vrs. P.P. Agrawla : 1997 (II) OLR 354, wherein it has been held that the power of confiscation under Section 56 of the Act is a very important power and it has to be used by the Authorized Officer, not sitting as a forest official but as an independent authority. In essence, it was held by the Appellate Authority that in the confiscation proceeding, Forest Department failed to adduce evidence regarding commission of forest offence. 4. In assailing the impugned judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that Authorized Officer passed order under Section 56 of the Act on the basis of evidence on record which established transportation of sized wood without authority. As many as five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Evidence was also adduced from the side of the owner who examined himself as well as other witnesses. However, the appellate court passed the order being swayed away by stray statements of witnesses Chittaranjan Pradhan, forester and Sweta Kumar Danga who were examined on behalf of the prosecution by holding that sized wood were dismantled parts of furniture. It is argued that the appellate court has failed to take note of the totality of evidence which clearly indicates that seized wood were sized timbers which were being transported in the seized truck without any permit. 5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the owner that from the very beginning, the owner took the plea that 30 pieces of disputed wood were dismantled parts of household articles such as racks, bench etc. belonging to Ramesh Chandra Bhutia who had obtained permission from the Forest Department to transport the articles on his transfer. Ramesh Chandra Bhutia as well as the truck driver deposed regarding the same. They were supported by witnesses Sweta Kumar Danga and Chittaranjan Pradhan who were examined on behalf of the Forest Department. Authorized Officer passed order of confiscation without reference and consideration of said evidence. The Appellate Authority rightly set aside the order of confiscation placing reliance on the decision of State –vrs. P.P. Agrawla (supra) 6. Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by re-appreciation of evidence on record. Both questions of law as well as fact may be dealt with in appeal. However, there is little scope for reappraisal of evidence in a writ proceeding. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 7. In his show cause filed before the Authorized Officer, the owner took the categorical plea that Ramesh Chandra Bhutia was transporting his household articles including table, bench, cot etc. in the truck. In his evidence before Authorized Officer also the owner deposed that he sent his driver Dushmanta Kumar Behera for transportation of household materials of Ramesh Chandra Bhutia in the seized truck. Said Dushmanta Kumar Behera stated in his evidence that on 16.4.2006 he brought the truck to Athmallik to transport Ramesh Chandra Bhutia’s personal household materials. At Athmallik Ramesh Chandra Bhutia called the forester to verify the wooden articles like cot, bench, rack, sofa set, chair, table etc. The truck was detained and taken to office of the District Forest Officer no sooner did it start after loading. It is in the evidence of the driver that articles in the truck included dismantled and detached parts of furniture which were seized. Ramesh Chandra Bhutia himself deposed that he had hired the 2 seized truck for transportation of household articles. Before loading he got the wooden furniture verified by the Forester, Athmallik. Due to shortage of space some furniture were dismantled to pieces and loaded in the truck. Thus, evidence was adduced from the side of the owner that before loading furniture were verified by the forester and that some of the furniture were dismantled before loading. This part of evidence finds support from the evidence of Sweta Kumar Danga an independent witness and Chittaranjan Pradhan, Forester, Athmallik. Sweta Kumar Danga deposed that articles loaded in the truck included cot, bench, racks etc. In course of cross-examination it was elaborated by this witness that articles included dismantled parts of bench and racks. The planks had nail marks. It is also in his evidence that Ramesh Chandra Bhutia showed permission granted by Forest Official for transporting household articles at the time of seizure. Forester Chittaranjan Pradhan admitted in course of his cross- examination that in course of seizure Ramesh Chandra Bhutia had produced certificate granted by him for transportation of household articles. However, the certificate was not seized. Authorized Officer does not appear to have considered such evidence which squarely supports the owner’s plea that seized wood were dismantled parts of old wooden furniture. The learned Additional District Judge has also taken note of the circumstance that Authorized Officer passed the order of confiscation without verifying the seized wooden planks which were never produced before him. Thus, learned Additional District Judge, Angul has assigned cogent reasons in support of the conclusion that order of confiscation was passed without reference to evidence on record. Upon scrutiny of materials on record finding of fact recorded by the Additional District Judge does not appear to be perverse or unreasonable. Therefore, State has failed to make out any cogent ground for interference with the order passed in FAO No.1 of 2007. W.P.(C) No.4271 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed with cost. 8. It appears that by order dated 7.9.2007 passed in Misc. Case Nos.8137 and 4216 of 2007, arising out of W.P.(C) No.4271 of 2007, the seized truck has been released in the interim custody of the owner on furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/- and other conditions. Therefore, there remains nothing to be decided in W.P.(C) No.9251 of 2007, the prayer having been become infructuous. The owner is entitled to refund of cash security of Rs.50,000/-. 9. In view of the above, W.P.(C) No. 4271 of 2007 is dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) payable to the owner. W.P.(C) No.9251 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. The Authorized Officer is directed to refund the cash security of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the owner. W.P (C) No. 4271 /07 dismissed. W.P (C) No. 9251 /07 disposed of. 3