The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the existence of the notification issued under S.19 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, for a conviction under S.27 to be sustained.

1. These Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of prosecutions for offences under S.27 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, (Act 4 of 1962) hereinafter referred to as the Act. A common question of law arises in all these petitions and they are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. S.27 of the Act deals with penalties for trespass or damage in Reserved Forests S.4 to 18 of the Act provide for the determination of the rights in the land which is to be constituted as a Reserved Forest. Then comes S.19 under which the Reserved Forest is eventually constituted. S.19 of the Act is in the following terms:

"When the proceedings prescribed in the preceding sections have been taken, the Government may publish a notification in the Gazette specifying the limits of the forests which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification.

From the date so fixed, the forest shall be deemed to be a "Reserved Forest".

2. S.22 of the Act provides that "no right of description shall be acquired in or over a Reserved Forest except under a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government or by or on behalf of some person in whom such right or the power to create such right was vested when the notification under S.19 was published or by succession from such person".

3. It is a pre-requisite for a person to be held guilty under S.27 of the Act that there should be a notification under S.19 duly published in the Gazette. In the absence of such a notification the accused could not be found guilty, for contravention of the provisions of S.27 of the Act.

4. In all the cases which gave rise to these Criminal Revision Petitions neither the notification published under S.19 of the Act nor a copy thereof was produced. The question raised in these Criminal Revision Petitions is whether without the production of the notification issued under S.19 of the Act the conviction under S.27 can be sustained? On behalf of the accused it is submitted apart from proving the commission of the acts mentioned in S.27 of the Act, the prosecution must also prove the existence of a notification issued under S.19 of the Act specifying the limits of the forest which is intended to be reserved and declaring the same to be Reserved from the date fixed in the notification and the publication of the same in the Gazette. It was contended that this can be proved only by the production of the Gazette containing the notification itself and no other evidence can be acted upon.

5. A court is not under S.57 of the Evidence Act entitled to take judicial notice of a notification issued by the Government under S.19 of the Act. But such a notification is a public document within the meaning of S.74 of the Evidence Act. What is the mode of proof of the contents of the notification. The publication of the notification has to be in.the Gazette. S.78 of the Evidence Act prescribes special modes of proving the contents of various kinds of public documents. S.61 of the Evidence Act embodies the rule that "contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence". 'Primary evidence' is defined in S.62 while S.63 gives an inclusive definition of 'secondary evidence'. The contents of public documents can also be proved by production of secondary evidence. S.65 allows secondary evidence being given when the original is a public document within the meaning of S.74. In case when the original is a public document within the meaning of S.74 or in case when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by the Evidence Act or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence S.65 of the Evidence Act says that certified copy of the document but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible. If the official Gazette containing the notification under the Act is produced in court it has to presume its genuineness under S.81 of the Act. In view of these provisions of the Evidence Act