The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 267 of 2010 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranni.

2. The trial court convicted the revision petitioners under Section 27 (1)(e)(v) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced them thereunder to simple imprisonment for one year each and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with a default clause for simple imprisonment for one month each. The appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta as per judgment in Crl.Appeal No. 107 of 2013. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. The prosecution allegation is that on 17-3-2010, the revision petitioners blasted stones from the land occupied by the first revision petitioner pending dis-reservation and thereby they caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the State.

5. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the offence alleged was committed in a reserved forest as alleged by the prosecution and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are not sustainable. It is clear from Section 27 of the Act that before a person can be held guilty under Section 27 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that the act complained of was done in a reserved forest. This is a very essential ingredient of the offence under Section 27 of the Act.

7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the prosecution has established that the act complained of was committed in a reserved forest .

8. In order to prove that the offence was committed in a reserved forest, the prosecution produced Ext. P5 notification. Ext. P5 notification produced by the prosecution was only a copy of the certified copy.

9. Section 57 of the Evidence Act provides provisions for taking judicial notice in respect of the matters enumerated therein. A Division Bench of this Court in Chacko Pyli and Others v. State of Kerala (1966 KLT 102) held that a Court is not under Section 57 of the Evidence Act entitled to take judicial notice of a notification issued by the Government under Section 19 of the Act.

10. A Full Bench of this Court in Executive Officer v. Chalakkudy Panchayat [1970 KLT 991 (FB] held that the Court shall take judicial notice of a notification relating to a Statute or a rule made thereunder.

11. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the present notification, namely, Ext. P5 is legislative or executive in character. If it is found that the present notification is executive in character, there can be no doubt that the judicial notice cannot be taken in relation to the same. The Full Bench in Executive Officer (Supra) held in paragraph 7 thus:-

“The other decisions of this Court, namely, Pyli v. State of Kerala 1966 KLT 102, Chandrasekharan v. State 1966 KLT 638 and Executive Officer v. Bharathan (1967 KLT 161) deal with notifications of a different kind. The first of these deals with a notification under S. 19 of the Kerala Forests Act, 1961, declaring a particular area to be a reserved forest; the second deals with a notification fixing a maximum price under the Essential commodities Act; and the third with a notification including a trade within the schedule of dangerous traders in the Madras Village Panchayaaats Act. Whether notifications like these are legislative, or albeit statutory, essentially executive in character is a matter on which two views seem possible and on which we do not feel called upon to pronounce, although it would appear that there is much to be said for the view that the second and third are legislative in character”.

Their Lordships have considered three notifications in the above