Ignoring material evidence renders an appellate finding perverse.

Forest officials intercepted a Mahindra Maximo van carrying four freshly cut Simili logs without the required transit permits or hammer impressions.

The Authorised Officer confiscated the timber and vehicle under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

On the vehicle owner’s appeal, the District Judge set aside the confiscation order, finding that the inquiry did not comply with Rule 4(2) of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980.

The State challenged that appellate order by writ petition.

The District Judge had relied on the Range Officer’s failure to examine the seizing officers and the driver.

The High Court noted, however, that the Authorised Officer’s record included evidence from four prosecution witnesses who corroborated the seizure.

Whether the District Judge’s decision to set aside the confiscation order for non-compliance with Rule 4(2) was sustainable when the evidence recorded before the Authorised Officer included testimony from the officers involved in the seizure.

Whether the appeal should be remitted for fresh consideration of the entire evidence and materials on record.

Rule 4(2) of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 requires an inquiry into a forest offence to be held by an officer not below the rank of Range Officer.

Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 provides the statutory basis for confiscation proceedings.

The Court referred to Rabinarayan Sahu v. Forest Range Officer, Soroda Range & Others, 2008 Cri LJ 4271, concerning the mandatory character of the subsequent inquiry under Rule 4(2), and Anatha Bandhu Mandal v. State of Orissa & Others, AIR 2015 Ori 143, concerning the procedure for that inquiry.

An appellate finding must account for the entire evidence on record; failure to consider material evidence may render the finding perverse.

The High Court held that the District Judge’s finding of no proper inquiry rested on an incomplete assessment of the record.

Although the District Judge emphasized that the Range Officer had not examined the seizing officers or the driver, the Authorised Officer had examined five prosecution witnesses, including the Forester and other forest staff who testified to the detention of the vehicle and seizure of the timber.

The District Judge did not consider that evidence, and the resulting finding was therefore perverse and could not be sustained.

The Court also observed that the finding concerning the owner’s knowledge had to be assessed against the entire evidence, rather than by placing the burden solely on the prosecution.

It remitted the appeal rather than deciding the confiscation issue on the merits.

It remitted F.A.O. No. 5 of 2013 to the District Judge for fresh decision after considering the entire evidence and materials on record, requesting disposal as early as possible and preferably within two months.