JUDGMENT 1. - This petition u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 15th March, 83, by which he maintained the judgment of the ACJM No. 3, Jodhpur, dated 10th Jan., 83. 2. A challan was filed against the respondents for contravening the provisions of S. 77 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 53, by violating R. 2 of the Rajasthan Forest Produce Transit Rules, 57. The accused-respondents were carrying Khejri wood and Babool wood, and were detected on 3rd Feb.,'82. at 1.45 PM. The case of the prosecution is that the accused-respondents had no transit-permit for bringing the wood from the forest. The seized wood was timber wood; and a person cannot cut trees without a permit from the Forest Department, During the pendency of the case, an application was submitted on behalf of the accused-respondents alleging that Khejri is a wood which is used for fire only. 3. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that Babool wood was not covered under the definition of "timber", because, Desi Babool which is used for fire only, and thus, according to him, the wood which was seized, does not come under the definition of "timber". 4. After perusing the record and considering the arguments, I find that the case has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the wood which was seized was timber. Actually, there is no definite proof that Babool was covered under the definition of "timber". No doubt, it was Babool wood and it can be of timber kind also, but, as Desi-Babool is used for fire purpose only, it does not fall within the definition of "timber" ; and thus, there is a doubt in this case whether the seized Babool was timber or not, and so, its benefit should be given to the accused-respondents. 5. Hence, the petition having to substance, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******