( 1 ) RAMCHARAN, the respondent in this appeal, was prosecuted under Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950, on a complaint made by the Station Officer Rehli, District Sagar. The Magistrate First Class, Rehli, by his order dated April 19, 1974 convicted the respondent and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, by his order passed on March, 8, 1975 acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the Station Officer Rehli was not empowered under Section 7 (1) of the Act to make the complaint. The State preferred the present appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the additional Sessions Judge. At the time of admission of the appeal before a division Bench, the learned Government Advocate produced a copy of notification No. G. S. R. 1512 of December 24, 1960 under which the Station officer, Rehli, and many other Officers of similar rank were specially empowered by the Central Government under Section 7 (1) to make complaints in respect of offences punishable under the Act. The Division Bench was inclined to take judicial notice of the notification, but it felt that it could not do so if the view taken in Mathuradas v. State, AIR 1954 Nag 296 = ILR (1954) Nag 578 was correct. As in the opinion of the Division Bench Mathuradas' ease was wrongly decided, it referred the appeal to a larger Bench for a reconsideration of the view taken in that case. This is how this appeal has come up before us.

( 2 ) IN Mathuradas' case (AIR 1954 Nag 296) a Division Bench of this Court held that a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, was not a part of law of the land and judicial notice could not be taken thereof under Section 57 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. There are also some general observations in the case that a notification is not included within the term "law", It was, however, accepted that if a notification is published in the Gazette, production of the Gazette printed under the authority of the Government will be sufficient proof of the notification under section 78 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, we are concerned with a notification issued under Section 7 (1) of the Telegraph Wires Act and we will, therefore, have to consider whether such a notification has the force of law of which judicial notice can be taken. It Is in this context that we have to see whether Mathuradas' case was correctly decided.

( 3 ) SECTION 7 of the Telegraph Wires Act deals with cognizance of offences under that Act. Sub-section (1) of this section provides that "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act save on a complaint made by or under the authority of the Central Government or by any officer specially empowered in this behalf by that Government". The special empowering of officers under this provision has been done by Notification No G. S. R. 1412 to which reference has been made earlier. The notification reads as follows :

"g. S. R. 1512, dated the 24th December, 1960.-- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Telegraph wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 (74 of 1950) and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Central government specially empowers each of the Officers specified in the schedule below to make complaints in respect of offences punishable tinder the said Act. THE SCHEDULE officers of the State Government. Name of Stute Headquarters of District (Police and the Officers. Sagar Station)designation of officer. Station Officer. Rehli. Rehli. "

( 4 ) STATUTORY provision regarding matters which may be taken judicial notice of is made in Section 57 of the Evidence Act which in so far as relevant reads as follows :

"the Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts :- (1) All laws in force in