IMPORTANT POINTS:
" Under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, and another term of simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.
" In State of Kerala v. Adichan Sasi (1975 KHC 136), this Court has held long back that a notification issued under the old Forest Act can be deemed to be a notification under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act.

Crl.R.P. No.1735/2006 stands disposed of by this Court on 10.07.2018 by an order of acquittal. The accused who brought the said revision before this Court were found not guilty of the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act on various grounds. One of the grounds of acquittal is that the confession statements of the accused, on which, the prosecution rely are not properly and legally proved, the second ground of acquittal is that the copy of the Government notification produced by the prosecution is not proved, and the third ground is that there is no proper and satisfactory evidence to prove the prosecution case on facts. Crl.M.A.No.1/2018 is filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for rehearing the said revision on the ground that the Court has committed some factual errors, and that the accused were wrongly acquitted in revision. If the prosecution is aggrieved by the order in revision, or if the prosecution has got a grievance that the accused were wrongly acquitted, the proper and legal remedy must be to approach the Supreme Court, and not to file petition for rehearing. Any way, it appears from the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the actual grievance of the Forest Department is regarding the findings made by the Court as regards the proof of the Government notification in Joonus v. State of Kerala (2018 (3) KLT 420) and Rajan v. State of Kerala (2018 (3) KLT 422). When that alone is practically their grievance, the legal aspect can be clarified, and if necessary, the findings can be modified.

2. Crl.R.P.No.362/2005 is a revision brought by the three accused in C.C. No.306/1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. They faced trial before the learned Magistrate under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, and also under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act on the allegation that they jointly trespassed into the Government Reserve Forest at the Victoria part of the Padagiri Section within the Nelliampathy Forest Range on 11.03.1999, and they trapped and killed a wild animal. It appears that the offence was detected by a Forester of the said Forest Range on the basis of secret information. The prosecution records reveal that on the basis of the said information, the Section Forester, accompanied by some Forest Guards, reached the house of the 1st accused, and questioned him. As led by the 1st accused, the Forester reached the scene of occurrence, and he saw the skeleton of a wild animal there. The gun alleged to have been used by the accused for hunting was also seized by him at the house of the 1st accused. On the basis of the statements given by the 1st accused, the other two accused were arraigned and arrested. After investigation, the Forest Range Officer of the Range submitted complaint before the court.

3. All the three accused in C.C.No.306/1999 pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court. The prosecution examined six witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to M05 properties were also identified during trial.

4. All the three accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence of total denial. They disowned the confession statements alleged to have been given by them to the Forest Range officer.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the three accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, and another term of simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2002, the three accused approached the Court of Session, Palakkad, with Crl.A.No.334/2002. In appeal, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. The conviction