1. The petitioners challenge the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence passed under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. Though the complaint was filed alleging offence under Section 27 (1) (e)(iii) also, the accused were found not guilty of that offence. Since there is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the act complained of, the only point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the prosecution contended that the area alleged to have been trespassed upon by the accused is a reserve forest, the original or the certified copy of the notification issued under Section 19 of the Act was not produced before the court and so the conviction is unsustainable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that production of the original or the certified copy of the notification under Section 19 is a pre-requisite for finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Act. It is argued that what was produced before the court was only an unattested photocopy of the notification.

2. On the premise that, what was produced was only an unattested copy of the notification, arguments were addressed at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the conviction is unsustainable. In Chacko Paily and others versus State of Kerala – 1966 KLT 102, a Division Bench of this court held:

“It is a pre-requisite for a person to be held guilty under Sec. 27 of the Act that there should be a notification under Section 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.”

Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners that it is the duty of the prosecution to have established that the act complained of was done in a reserved forest by the issue of a notification under Section 19 of the Act and by the publication of the same in the gazette and by producing a certified copy of the notification evidencing the same. The decision in State of Kerala versus Kuttan Panicker 1970 KLT Short Note case Page No. 17 has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That was a case where the document which was produced in that case was only some typed papers purporting to be the notification. It was not a certified copy nor was it attested by the head of the department as required under Section 78 of the Evidence Act. Another decision in A.M. Antony versus Forest Range Officer 1977 KLT 691 was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That was also a case where the notification issued under the Forest Act constituting the area where the offence was committed as a reserved forest was not marked or proved and as such it was held that the conviction is unsustainable.

3. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally untenable and misplaced. Ext.P2 is the copy of the gazette notification which was attested by the Chief Conservator of Forest. There is a clear certificate in Ext.P2 that it is the copy of the notification published in page No. 569 of the Travancore Government gazette No. 25 dated 24.06.1902 under date 13th June 1902. It was attested on 07.02.1994. The designation seal of the Chief Conservator of Forest and the office seal are seen affixed on it. It was held by this court in State of Kerala versus Adichan Sasi 1975 KLT 839 thus:

“A notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act is a public document and under S.77 of the Evidence Act, a certified copy may be produced in proof of it. The Chief Conservator of Forests as the Head of the Department is an officer competent to certify to the correctness of the copy in view of Ss.78 and 79 of the Evidence Act.”

4. Since it was attested by the Chief Conservator of Forest as the head of the department who is competent to certify to the correctness of the copy, the arguments to the contrary a