The prosecution must establish the essential notifications and orders for proving the accused's contravention of the law, and the failure to prove that the scene of the offence is part of a reserved forest led to the acquittal of the petitioner.

1. The fourth accused in C. C. No. 13 of 1972 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalpetta, who has been convicted for offences punishable under S.27 (2) (c) and 27 (1)(g) of the Kerala Forest Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months on the first count and to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on the second count, is the petitioner. On appeal, the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner were confirmed.

2. The case against the petitioner is that at about a. m. on the night of January 18, 1972, he along with six others trespassed into the Kuppadi reserved forest within the Battery Forest Range and cut a rosewood tree and thereby caused loss of Rs. 4000/ to the Government.

3. The petitioner denied the commission of any offence as alleged and pleaded not guilty.

4. The main contention raised before the courts below and this Court on behalf of the petitioner was that the prosecution has failed to prove that the scene of offence is an area forming part of a reserved forest. It is seen from the judgment of the appellate court that a certified extract from the Fort St. George Gazette, Madras, dated 31st March, 1885, containing a notification issued in 1885 under the Madras Forest Act (Act V of 1862) notifying Kuppadi Forest as a reserved forest, was produced before the trial court. But no such notification is seen marked and proved before the trial court, although it has stated in its judgment that a notification issued under the Madras Forest Act dated 3131885 was produced before it by the complainant. Probably the trial court was under the impression that what was produced before it was the original gazette itself containing the notification. It is now admitted before this Court by the State that what was produced before the trial court was only a copy of the notification contained in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 313 1885. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strongly pressed for quashing the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner on the short ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the notification said to have been published either under the Madras Forest Act or under the Kerala Forest Act constituting the area in question as a reserved forest and that in the absence of any evidence on the point, the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal. Admittedly neither the gazette containing the alleged notification under the Madras Forest Act nor a certified copy of the said notification has been tendered in evidence and proved in this case. No notification under S.19 of the Kerala Forest Act has so far been issued. But by virtue of S 85 (3) of the Kerala Forest Act any notification issued under the enactments repealed under sub-section (1) of the said section shall be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, made, conferred and issued thereunder till new rules and enactments are made under the various sections of the Kerala Forest Act. It is surprising and regrettable that m spite of the fact that the petitioner had been contending at the earliest point of time before the trial court that there was no notification constituting the area in question as a reserved forest and that scene of offence did not form part of such a forest, the prosecution failed to produce such a notification or a certified copy of it and mark and prove the same according to law. No question has been put to the petitioner when he was examined under S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, bringing to his notice that a copy of the notification bad been produced by the complainant. It is not proper or fair to rely on a material circumstance which has not been put to an accused when examined under S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) in support of his conviction