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