STATE OF KERALA Vs. KESAVAN NANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein were prosecuted by the State for offence punishable under section 27(2 )(c)and(d)of the Kerala Forest Act alleging that they unauthorisedly trespassed into the forest area known as Ariencavu Reserve and attempted to remove logs of teak trees belonging to Government.Ext.P -3 is the copy of the notification issued under section 18 of the Travancore Regulation III of 1068 declaring the area as Reserve Forest and specifying its boundaries.Travancore Regulation II of 1068 was replaced by Travancore -Cochin Forest Act of 1951.After the Kerala State was formed,the Kerala Forest Act 4 of 1962 was passed which repealed the Travancore -Cochin Forest Act.Both section 19 of the Travancore -Cochin Forest Act and section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act provide for notifications declaring forests reserved.The above sections are in line with section 18 of the Travancore Forest Regulation II of 1068.It is common case that no fresh notifications have been issued under the two enactments.The trial court held that in the absence of a notification under section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act,the area does not become Reserve Forest for the purpose of that Act and no prosecution for trespass or removal of trees would lie.The court also observed that there was no proper evidence regarding the publication of Ext.P -3 notification.The accused were accordingly acquitted.

(2.) THE short point for decision is whether Ext.P -3,copy of the notification can be acted upon.The trial court placed reliance on Pyli v. State of Kerala 1966 K.L.T.102 and refused to take judicial notice of the notification declaring the limits of the Arienkavu Reserve.The decision,no doubt,deals with the mode of proof in respect of a notification issued under the Kerala Forest Act.But the trial court omitted to note that no copy of the notification had been produced in that case and,therefore,the decision has no application to the facts of the present case,On the other hand,the decision recognises that a notification issued under section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act.Section 78 of the Evidence Act prescribes the mode of proof in respect of public documents.Acts,orders or notifications of the Central Government in any of its departments or of any State Government or any department of any State Govern­ment are to be proved by the records of the departments,certified by the heads of those departments respectively.Section 77 of the Evidence Act permits production of certified copies in proof of the contents of the public documents.Ext.P -3 has been certified by the Chief Conservator of Forests who is the head of the Forest Department as a true copy of the notification published on page 974 of the Travancore Government Gazette dated 20th August,1901.Therefore,there is no doubt that Arienkavu Reserve was a Reserved Forest under section 18 of the Travancore Forest Regulation II of 1068.

(3.) IT follows that the grounds on which the trial court acquitted the accused are not sustainable.The court has not considered the merits of the case and has not found whether there has been trespass into or removal of trees from the Reserved Forests by the accused.The case has to be sent back to the trial court for decision on the merits The appeal is accordingly allowed.The order of acquittal is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for disposal,according to law.