JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, issue notice as to why this petition be not admitted and finally disposed of at this stage. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice. 2. Heard learned counsel. 3. By the impugned order the two learned courts below have dismissed the petitioner's application for delivery of the tractor and trolley to the petitioner, which had been seized for a forest offence. 4. According to the prosecution, the case is that on 14.4.2000 the tractor was found carrying fresh Khejdi Wood inasmuch as the Wood was bearing Green Leaves and the petitioner was found to be carrying the tractor and the said tractor is said to be belonging to him. It is also case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not have requisite permission for removal of the Wood. 5. The learned trial court has declined to deliver the tractor on two grounds, first being that according to the Registration Certificate, it is registered in the name of more than one persons and that one of the co-owners moved an application to the effect that the tractor be not delivered on 'Supardginama' to the present petitioner, the other ground given is that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan reported in 2000 Cr. Law Reporter (SC) P 657 , it can be released only in exceptional circumstances. 6. The learned revisional Court declined to interfere with the order of the learned trial court on the ground that it is not shown that the wood as being transported under any legal permit and thus prima-facie forest offence is shown to be made out and the vehicle is liable to be confiscated and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan mentioned above, no exceptional circumstances have been shown to exist. 7. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to FIR, the wood was removed from the petitioner's own field and is not shown to have been brought either from the forest or from any land wherein the petitioner may not be having any interest and submitted that since the wood is Khejdi wood, a substantial question does exist as to whether the Wood found in the Tractor would at all fall within the definition of term 'Forest Produce' as defined in Section 2(4) of the Act and thus it constitutes an exception circumstances for the purpose of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Krishnan's case. 8. Without making any observations on merits of the question as to whether the wood falls within the definition of Forest Produce or not lest it v/ill prejudice the case of either parties during trial, taking it to be an exceptional circumstances, I am inclined to release the tractor and trolley during pendency of the trial. 9. Accordingly the petitioner is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner's application filed under Section 451 is allowed and it is directed that the tractor and trolley seized in FIR Case No. 52/2000 be delivered to the petitioner on his furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the effect that during pendency of the trial or at the conclusion of the trial, he will produce the tractor as and when called upon by the learned trial court or any other court or authority, and in the event of failure, the guarantee would be invoked. The petitioner should also submit an appropriate bail bond and Supardginama in the aforesaid amount further undertaking that during this period the petitioner will not make an physical alterations in the tractor and trolley. Before releasing the tractor, coloured photograph of the tractor and trolley be retained on record. *******