Notification issued whether still in force despite repeal of the Regulation.

Revision-petitioners, accused in C.C.No. 113 of 1978 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha, were convicted under section 27 (1) (d) (g) and 2 (c) of the Kerala Forest Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each Court under section 27 (1) (d) and (g) of the Act. No separate sentence was imposed for offence under section 27 (2) (c) of the Act. The conviction and sentences imposed were confirmed by the Court of Session, Thodupuzha in Crl. A. No. 52 of 1979.

2. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows: 1st revision petitione-has been granted lease in respect of portion of land known as Food Production Area, which is a part of the Thoduppuha Reserve Forest. The 1st revision petitioner together with other revision-petitioners trespassed into Chelakkadu are only Thodupuzha reserved forest, adjoining to the land in his possession and cut one irul tree, two anjili trees, two teak trees and also cut two anjili trees including one deadanjili tree from the food production area, cut them into pieces removed them and sawed them and thereafter they were removed to the residence of the first revision-petitioner in the food Production area and there they wereconverted in to door frames, window frames and other articles for the purpose of the house under construction by the first revision petitioner. This was noticed bythe Idikki Flyine Squad Range Officer, P.W. 6, on 9th October, 1977. He arranged the articles to be guarded as seizure was to be made by P.W.1, Forest Range Officer Thodu-puzha and therefore P.W. 6 left the place and came back the next day with P.W.-1 and others. Various articles were seized under Exhibit P-1 mahazar, signed by the forest officers, P.Ws. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as also two independent witnesses, P.Ws. 4 and 5. After the completion of the investigation, P.W.I laid the complaint before the trial Magistrate. Revision petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges framed by the trial Magistrate. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exhibits P-1 and P-2. Defence examined five witnesses and marked Exhibits D-1 to D.4. Revision petitioners contended that the articles seized were not made from trees cut from the Food Production Area or the remaining part of the forest area, but were bought from other sources for the purpose of the house under construction by the first revision petitioner. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence and circumstances upheld the prosecution case and rejected the defence version. The decision of the trial Court has been upheld by the first appellate Court

3. The first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the notification regarding the declaration of reserve forest and its publication has not been properly proved and therefore, the prosecution has to fail on that ground. It is further contended that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the places from where the trees were alleged to have been cut and removed are included in the area declared to be reserved forest under Exhibit P-2 notification. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions.

4. Muhammed Kunhi and others v. Tahsildar, Hosdurg and others1 is a case where either the notification or a copy thereof was not produced and no attempt was made to prove the same. A Division Bench of this Court held that the same could be proved by the production of the gazette in which the notification has been published or by producing a certified copy of the notification and adducing evidence regarding publication in the gazette. In Crl. A.No. 248 of 19692, a Single Bench of this Court had to deal with a case where a mere typed copy of the notification not even attested by the Head of the Department and not a certified copy thereof was produced, and it was held to be not sufficient. In Executive Officer, C