AMARJEET Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice for final disposal. Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, public prosecutor is directed to accept notice for the respondent State. He accepts the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied the copy of criminal misc. petition to public prosecutor. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. By the instant petition under section Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged order dated .. passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisinghnagar, district Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby while allowing the application filed by the petitioner, the trial court ordered to release the tractor and the trolley (Rehda) attached thereto, bearing No. RJ -R/ in favour of the petitioner provided the petitioner furnishes a Supardginama of Rs. 50,000/- and a bank guarantee for the like amount on certain conditions incorporated in the order. Aggrieved by the impugned order directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the tractor in question which alleged to have been found carrying Kikar "Babul" and Shisham wood in contravention of the provisions of the Forest Act and the petitioner is not an accused in the case. It is also contended that as per the Notification dated .. issued by the State Government, "babul" and Shisham have been exempted from the forest produce under the Rajasthan Forest (Produce Transit) Rules, (for short 'the Rules,hereinafter). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish such a huge bank guarantee and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed by the trial court to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- is onerous and the vehicle in question may be released in favour of the petitioner on Supurdginama. Rule of the Rules,pertains to exemption from forest produce and provides that in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to rule of the Rules, the State Government exempts transportation of forest produce of the following species for destination within the State of Rajasthan; namely Eucalyptus, Su-Babul, Ardu, Vilaiti Babul, Israeli Babul, Deshi Babul and Shisham.

(2.) This Court in Jeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) R.Cr.D. Raj. without going into the question as to whether the goods being transported in the vehicle, in fact, is a forest produce or not as defined in the Rajasthan Forest Act, held that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee is onerous and accordingly the condition of bank guarantee has been set aside and vehicle has been ordered to be released on Supardginama. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is yet to be established in the trial as to whether the wood carried in the vehicle or transported, are forest produce or not, more particularly keeping in view the Notification dated .. as also Rules of the Rules,by which the babul and Shisham wood are exempted from the category of forest produce, in my view, directing the petitioner to give the bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- appears to be a condition onerous and therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the vehicle in question is released in favour of petitioner on supurdginama.

(3.) In the result, the order impugned dated passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that instead of giving bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/-, the tractor and trolley attached thereto in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on Supurdinama on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with one solvent security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation therein that during the pendency of the criminal case, neither alienate nor transfer the said tractor and trolley and keep it in good condition and he will produce the vehicle in question as and when directed by the trial court. With the above modification, the petition is disposed of.