The prosecution must prove the validity of forest reservation notifications to uphold convictions under the Forest Act.

ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.20/2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (1)(e)(iv) and 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest (Amendment) Act,1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forest Act').

2. By judgment dated 05.12.2003, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences) Manjeri, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Forest Act. The accused was further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 27 (1)(e)(iii) of the Forest Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.474/2003 before the Additional Sessions court (Adhoc Fast Track Court-III), Manjeri. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred this revision.

4. Prosecution case in brief is as hereunder:-

The Deputy Ranger, Forest Station Pothukal filed the complaint alleging that the accused had trespassed into the teak plantation on 28.09.1995, in the evening and illegally cut and removed teak trees, causing a loss of Rs.1,000/- to the State Government.

5. During the trial, PW1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His case is one of total denial. Ext.D1- copy of the passport was marked on the defence side.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. PW1, the guard who detected the offence, adduced evidence to the fact that on 28.09.1995, while he was on beat duty along with other officials, at 05.00 pm, in the Kariam Muriam 1973 teak plantation, he heard the cutting sound of trees. On inspection, he saw the accused engaged in cutting the teak trees with an axe. Thereafter, he questioned the accused and the axe was taken into custody. He seized the timber logs and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. PW2 is the Forester who verified the mahazar on 09.09.1995. Pursuant to Ext.P1, PW3 verified the place of occurrence. PW4 is the Deputy Ranger, who laid Form II, after completing the usual formalities.

8. On going through the facts of the case, it is clear that no independent evidence was adduced to prove the occurrence. The accused was not arrested from the spot. The axe alleged to have been seized by the detecting officer had not been produced before the trial court. No explanation was offered for the non-production of the same.

9. The prosecution case was initiated on the strength of Ext.P3 notification No.471 issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) Kerala, Trivandrum as early as on 31.10.1900. As per Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act 1961, it is within the realm of the Government to publish a notification in the Gazette, specifying the limits of the forests which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification. Copies of the notification shall also be published at the headquarters of each taluk in which any portion of the land included in such notification is situate and in every town, village and headquarters of panchayats in the neigbourhood of such land. Hence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the notification under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 has been issued by the Government in accordance with law to treat the forest as 'reserved Forest'. Going by Ext.P3 notification, it is seen attested by Chief Conservator of Forests(Protection) Kerala, Trivandrum. He was not examined to prov