Seizure of property liable to confiscation :

(2-a) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: Provided that when the forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of Government and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior: Provided further that where any vehicle, rope, chain, boat or tool or cattle used in commission of such offence is seized under this sub-section, the Forest Officer shall produce the same before the authorised officer, who may, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, and if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he shall order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence.

(2-b) No order confiscating any property shall be made under Sub-Section (2-a) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given— (a) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property; (b) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable times as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation; and (c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(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 authorised 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 committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

(2-d) Any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Conservator of Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification, may, within thirty days from the date of the order of confiscation by the authorised officer under Sub-Section (2-a), either suo motu or on application, call for and examine the records of the case and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such order as he may think fit : Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

(2-e) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-Section (2-a) or Sub-Section (2-d) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final.

(3) The property seized under this section shall be kept in the custody of a Forest Officer or with any third party, until the compensation for compounding the offence is paid or until an order of the Magistrate directing its disposal is received. Provided that the seized property shall not be released during pendency of the confiscation proceeding or trial even on the application of the owner of the property for such release.

Explanation :— For the purposes of this Section and Section 59, cattle shall not include buffaloes, bulls, cows, calves and oxen. Case laws and judicial interpretations regarding Section 56: (12) 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) 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) Odisha 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. (16) 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. (20) 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 that the driver had committed the offence - 2002(II) OLR-216. (22) 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). (23) 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 seizure 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 seizure 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 bond 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 9 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 rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf by notification which may be referred to as the authorised officer). 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. 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 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. 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). 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. (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. (35) Amended Section 56 — The vehicle carrying forest material was confiscated by the D.F.O. - In appeal, such confiscation order vacated- 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 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- 310. (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 Notes (48) to (65) detail judicial interpretations and precedents regarding section 56 and its sub-sections (2), (2-a), (2-c), (2-d), (2-e) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. These include: (48) Liability for confiscation of vehicle used for illegal transport of kendu leaves; (49) Liability for tractor-trailer used for illicit timber transport; (50), (51) Rules regarding appeal jurisdiction and natural justice in confiscation; (52) Principle that orders made under a wrong provision are valid if the authority is competent; (53) Liability of owner when driver acts knowingly; (54) Conservator of Forests' supervisory powers versus District Judge's appellate powers; (55) Confiscation of jeep for lack of valid transit permit; (56) Interpretation of forest produce and transit permits for kendu leaves; (57) Liability of vehicle owner even without direct knowledge, if the driver acts with knowledge or connivance; (58) Jurisdiction of prescribed authority vs Magistrate regarding release of seized property; (59) Necessity to establish mens rea of the owner to sustain confiscation; (60) Applicability of Cr.P.C. sections 451 and 457 for timber custody; (61) Requirement of proof that transport of forest produce was for trade; (62) Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation; (63) Definition of forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii) regarding sal leaves; (64) Further clarification on the Conservator's lack of appellate jurisdiction; (65) Validity of orders signed under the wrong title (Sessions Judge vs District Judge).