SANATAN MAHALLIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 26(I)(i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 65 -, in default, to simple imprisonment for 15 days. Prosecution case is that at about 7 a.m. on 12 -2 -1963, the Petitioner shot a barking deer (Kutura) with his gun in the B class Government Reserved Forest of Shikharapur. The Petitioner admitted that be shot a barking deer in his brinjal Taila but not in the reserved forest. The learned Courts below rejected the defence plea that he shot a barking deer in his brinjal Taila and held that it was shot the forest which is a reserved forest.

(2.) IT is conceded by Mr. Misra that if the forest is a reserved forest, the conviction cannot be assailed. He, however, contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that the forest in question is a reserved forest and that such a case could be proved only by producing the notification declaring it to be a reserved forest. The contention requires careful examination.

(3.) MR . Mohapatra placed reliance on, 1963 M.P.L.J.(Notes 37) in support of his contention that oral evidence is admissible and sufficient to prove that a particular forest is a. reserved forest. As the report is' not before the Court, no view need be expressed as to its correctness. The Patna view also receives support from a decision 'of the Supreme Court in Union of India representing the Union Territory of Tripura v. Abdul Jaw and Ors., 1965 S.C.D. 76, though it has, no direct application to the facts of this case.