Rameshwar Lal vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

On 23.05.2009, forest wood was seized in petitioner Truck No. RJ19 1G-2897 . The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court and the trial Court vide order dt. 29.05.2009 ordered to release the vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing supardaginama of Rs. 5 Lacs along with Bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/-. This order was challenged by petitioner in revision and the revisional Court vide order dt. 09.06.2009 dismissed the revision petition, against which this petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question, which alleged to have been found carrying Neem, Babul and Ardu wood in contravention to provisions of the Forest Act. It is also contended that as per notification dt. 19.01.1991 issued by the State Government, Ardu and Babul have been exempted from forest produce under the Rajasthan Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1957. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish solvent security and further submitted that the condition to furnish Bank guarantee imposed by the trial Court is onerous and it may be relaxed; whereas, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as held by Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. K.A. Krishnan, reported in 2000 CrLR 764 (SC), the order imposing furnishing of Bank guarantee is in accordance with law and hence, the petition may be dismissed.

Rule 3 of the Rules, 1957 pertains to exemption from forest produce and provides that in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Rule 2 of the Rules, 1957, 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.

Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it is yet to be established in the trial as to whether the wood carried in the vehicle is forest produce or not, more particularly in view of notification dt. 19.01.1991. This Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 (1) CrLR (Raj) 23; Prem Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008 (1) CrCC 728 and Ummed Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 (3) RDD 1703, set aside the condition imposing Bank guarantee. In such circumstances, I deem it just and proper to relax the condition of imposing Bank guarantee instead of solvent guarantee.

In the result, this petition filed u/s 482 CrPC is accepted and the impugned order dt. 29.05.2009 passed by the trial Court and order dt. 09.06.2009 passed by the revisional Court are modified to the extent that instead of giving Bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/-, the seized vehicle (No. RJ19 1G-2897) shall be released in favour of petitioner on supardaginama, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5 Lac with a surety of like amount, with the condition that the petitioner will not transfer or alienate the same and shall produce the vehicle as and when ordered by the trial Court.