TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (5) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur who after hearing dismissed the same by order dated 27-6-1996 (Annexure 2). The validity of the aforesaid two orders are under challenge in this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts On 24-2-1993 at about 4.00 p.m. the Range Officer, Girishchandrapur getting information from the Range Officer, Uppermunda that a truck bearing registration number MWY 4731 with kendu-leaf bundles had been lying near Tikira rivulet near Gayapathar, rushed to the spot with members of his staff and found that the truck was stuck up in the loose sand of the river bed. There was no occupant in the truck. He seized the vehicle along with 833 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On the basis of the said report, the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests initiated the confiscation proceeding and issued notice to the petitioner who appeared before him and pleaded that he had no knowledge about illicit transportation of kendu leaves in his truck. According to him, the driver Satrughna Dehury had been to Angul with the truck with his permission to utilise the same on hire during return journey. The driver later came and reported to him that the truck was stuck up in the loose sand of the river-bed and when he deputed the driver to extricate it, it was found that the same had been seized by the forest officials. In course of the proceedings, six witness es were examined including the concerned Range Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment dated 17-8-1990 of this Court in O.J.C. No. 1834 of 1984 (Divisional Forest Officer. Athmallick v. M/s. Link Transport). In that case, this Court found that there was no clinching material that kendu leaves were being transported to one district to another district. In absence of satisfactory evidence in that regard, the Court held that there was no violation of Rule 4 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transit Permit Rules') and consequently, no forest offence was committed. The confiscation proceeding was accordingly held to be unsustainable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the witnes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st produce for transport of minor forest produce within the district except lac, taser, etc. (kendu leaves not included). Rule 21 provides that who-ever contravenes any of the provisions of the rules shall be punished with imprisonment stated therein. From the conjoint reading of all the aforesaid provisions it follows that so far as kendu leaves are concerned no transit permit is necessary for their transport within the district. In other words, transport of kendu leaves beyond the district has to be backed by a Transit Permit and forest offence is committed in absence of Transit Permit. 6. The limited question that arises for consideration is whether in the case at hand, the prosecution has been able to prove that there was commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 and the number plate which was attached to the truck, i.e., MWY 4731 at the time of detection was a forged one. He deposed that on further enquiry he found that the driver had purchased the dried kendu leaves from the local people of Atheallick (K.L.) Division to transport the same to Calcutta via Gayapathar and Uppermunda. Nothing was brought out in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony as aforesaid. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to the contrary. It was open to him to show that the kendu leaves were being carried inside the district of Sambalpur. As the kendu leaves were not backed by any transit permit, it was for the petitioner to establish the place of purchase of the kendu leaves and the place whereto they wer....