JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. It is alleged that on 08.12.2010 police recovered 80 Qtls. Of Green woods, while being transported by one Heera Lal, after cutting it without permission, against which FIR No.505/2010 was registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offence under section 41 and 42 of Forest Act and investigation commenced. 3. It was alleged that the petitioner Industry had purchased the aforesaid woods through bills dated 07.12.2010 from M/s Chhotu Ram Shyam Sunder, Mirzapur Road, Delhi By pass, Hissar (Haryana) bearing No.4505. It was further alleged that the recovered woods were firewood and the petitioner is the owner of the recovered woods. The owner of the petitioner- Industry, being a lady, she executed a power of attorney in favour of one Shanker Goyal, for taking the recovered woods on supurdginama, who preferred an application before the court below, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2010. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court , which was dismissed by the revisional court, vide its order dated 02.02.2011 confirming the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the court below holding that there is no relaxation for transportation of Eucalyptus woods in Rawatsar Tehsil, District Hanumangarh, under the provisions of Rajasthan Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1957. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the revisional court regarding the fact that it has imposed the condition to obtain the transit permit before getting the woods on 'supurginama' , is illegal because, for the woods which are lying at the police station, no transit permit can be obtained by the petitioner. Therefore , this condition may be deleted from the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan v. Girraj Prasad, [2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 705] in support of his argument. 5. Learned counsel further contended that the recovered woods were purchased by the petitioner for using the same as fire woods, thus, there is no necessity for the petitioner to obtain a transit pass under the Rajasthan Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1957. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments. 7. 5. Learned counsel further contended that the recovered woods were purchased by the petitioner for using the same as fire woods, thus, there is no necessity for the petitioner to obtain a transit pass under the Rajasthan Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1957. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the revisional court. 8. It is admitted fact that the woods which were seized by the police were of Eucalyptus and so long as it lies at the police station, no transit permit can be obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 02.02.2011 of the learned revisional court, imposing the condition, is set aside to the extent that the woods will be given on supurdginama only after production of legal Transit Permit by the petitioner, regarding transportation of the woods. Accordingly, this condition stands deleted from the order dated 02.02.2011 of the revisional court. 9. Resultantly, the criminal misc. petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above and the other conditions of the learned revisional court shall remain operative.Petition Partly Allowed. *******