A conviction under Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act requires proper notifications under Sec. 29 and 30 of the Act, and a forest guard attempting to seize logs of sal wood without such notifications is not acting in execution of his duty.

K.Sahai, J.

1. All the four petitioners have been convicted under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act (XVI of 1927), and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner No. 1 and two others, who have not filed any application for revision, have been convicted under Sec. 42 of the same Act read with Transit Rules 2 and 5 (vi), and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 or, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Petitioner No. 1 has been further convicted under Sec.353 of the Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The price of the sal rolas in question, which were seized from the possession of petitioner No. 1 and two others, has been ordered to be forfeited.

2. The prosecution case is that, on the 2nd October, 1956, a forest guard named Jamuna Singh (P. W. 1) saw petitioners Janu Khan, Manan Khan and Halo Khan stripping off the bark from sal rolas (logs of sal wood), which had been cut, and petitioner Akram Khan loading those rolas on a truck bearing Registered No. B. R. L. 898. Jamuna Singh attempted to seize the rolas and tangis; but petitioner Janu Khan abused him, and ran to assault him with an axe, whereupon he fled away. Jamuna gave a written report (exhibit 1) to the Beat Officer. Subsequently, at about 11 p. m., the Beat Officer found petitioner Janu Khan and two others, who were the driver and the cleaner of the truck, taking 114 logs of sal wood on that truck at a railway crossing and they had no permit for transit. The Beat Officer seized the truck with the loaded sal rolas, and pruudced the driver, the cleaner and petitioner Janu Khan before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 3rd October, 1956. In due course, the petitioners and the other two were put upon their trial, and I have already mentioned the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioners.

3. The first point which Mr. Ghosal has as taken on behalf of the petitioners is that their conviction under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act is bad. The petitioners were charged for having contravened the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.33, which read:

"33. (1) Any person who commits any of the following offences, namely:-

- (a) fells, girdles, lops, laps or burns any tree reserved under Sec.30, Or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, any such tree;

(b) contrary to any prohibition under Sec.30, quarries any stone, or burns any lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes any forest-produce;

x x x X

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." The allegation against the petitioners is that they were stripping off the bark of the logs of sal wood which had been cut, and, therefore, their act falls under Clause (a). It is also alleged that they were removing forest produce, namely, sal rolas, and hence their act falls under Clause (b). The point which Mr. Ghosal has argued is that the State Government must issue notifications under sections 29 and 30 before any one can be said to be guilty under Section 33(1) (a) or (1) (b). He has pointed out that there is on the record the true copy of a notification, which purports to have been issued by the State Government under Sec.29 of the Act; but he has contended that the Court cannot take it into consideration because it has not been properly proved. There is substance in this argument. A notification which is issued by the Central Government or the State Government or by a department of the Government is a public document, and a certified copy of it may be produced in order to prove the existence, conditions or contents of that document under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. Section 78(1) of that Act provides for the manner in which such documents can be proved. It is as foll