1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 541/2007 ..... Date of Order : 19/02/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. P.K.Sharma for the petitioner Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.02.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.1.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned passed by the courts below. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner participated in the bid organized by the Forest Department for Kikar wood cutting and taking on contract and bid was accepted and petitioner was granted contract to cut the Kikar wood on payment of Rs. 95,500/-. An order issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sri Ganganagar dated 29.11.2006 has been placed on record. Learned counsel submits that for a period of twenty days, transit permit was also issued to take the kikar wood from the forest by Tractor No.RJ-13-1R-9092 and therefore, the petitioner was lawfully taking the wood from the forest after depositing a sum of Rs.95,500/- under valid transit permit. It appears that both the courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter perspectively. The trial court though took notice of the fact but noticed that whether this transit permit relates to the very kikar wood which is subject matter of the case and declined to release the wood on Supardginama. In my view, it is not the case of the State that the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sri Ganganagar dated 29.11.2006 relates to some other kikar wood or the transit permit was for some other wood. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the only contract taken by the petitioner and the transit permit has been issued in respect of very contract which is subject matter of the case. In my view, the 3 orders passed by the courts below cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside keeping in view the order dated 29.11.2006 and the transit permit dated 28.1.2007. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The orders impugned passed by the courts below are set aside. The trial court is directed to release the wood on Supardginama in favour of the petitioner provided the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 95,500/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on the usual conditions which the trial court may deem fit to impose. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp