JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is a writ petition against the order dated 26.5.07 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No. 42/2007, State v. Chiunti Singh alias Ram Naresh, under Section 4/10 U.P. Protection of Trees Act and the judgment and order dated 9.10.2007 passed by Sri Om Prakash Misra, Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C. Court No. 2 Siddharthnagar in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2007, Smt. Geeta Singh v. State of U.P., arising out of the aforesaid order of the Magistrate in the above case. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the opp. party at the admission stage, and the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the parties. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 5.3.07 a F.I.R. was registered against Chiunta Singh, husband of the petitioner Smt. Geeta Singh on the basis of the report of Sri Prakash Dixit Sub Inspector in which it was alleged that he received information from an informer that several green Sisam trees had been cut by the accused Chiunta Singh and that the wood of those trees shall be sold at Balrampur. Then Sri Prakash Dixit reached the spot and found that nineteen green Sisam trees had been cut 2-3 days ago and their Botas (pieces of trees) worth Rs. 60,000/- had been prepared and upon inquiry Sri Prakash Dixit came to know that the garden of these Sisam trees was owned by Chiunta Singh and Chiunta Singh had cut those trees without any permit for cutting green trees . On the basis of this report a case under Section 4/10 of U.P. Protection of Trees Act was registered against Chiunta Singh alias Ram Naresh. 4. An application for release of the above wood was moved by Smt. Geeta Singh wife of Chiunta Singh in which she has mentioned that she had got these trees cut for use in construction of her house and that the above wood may be given in her custody otherwise it would be rotten during rainy season. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.5.2007. Aggrieved with that order Smt. Geeta Singh filed criminal Revision No. 136 of 2007. This revision was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C. Court No. 2 Siddharth Nagar. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.5.2007. Aggrieved with that order Smt. Geeta Singh filed criminal Revision No. 136 of 2007. This revision was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C. Court No. 2 Siddharth Nagar. Hence she filed this writ petition challenging both these orders. 5. It is to be seen that there is no dispute on this point that these trees which were cut were standing in the garden of the petitioner and there is no dispute regarding their ownership. The only allegation in the case is that her husband had got these trees cut without any licence for cutting green trees and so her husband has been challaned under Section 4/10 U.P. Protection of Trees Act. The petitioner’s contention is that the wood is lying open in the garden and it would be rotten if it is continuously kept there, and so it should be given in her custody. The prayer was opposed by the learned A.G.A. on the ground that the above wood is the case property and so it should not be given in the custody of the petitioner till disposal of the criminal case because it will have to be produced in the criminal case as and when required by the Court. 6. Considering the above contentions, I am of the view that the wood should be given in the Supurdagi of the petitioner on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 60,000/- being the cost of the wood with two sureties of the like amount provided she gives an undertaking that during the pendency of the criminal case against her husband she would properly keep the wood and shall not use or dispose of the same in any manner and shall produce the same before the Court whenever required to do so during pendency of criminal case . In case such undertaking is given and the personal bond and surety bonds are filed as directed above, then on their acceptance by the Court, the wood shall be given in the Supurdagi of the petitioner. The Trial Court is, however, directed to complete trial of the case against her husband expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the above directions the writ petition stands disposed of finally. ————