Judgment Ahmad, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Singhbhum convicting the petitioners under Sec. 49 (c) of the Bihar Private Forests Act and sentencing the petitioner Sitaram Jagatramka Agarwala to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and the petitioner Lal Mohan Mahton to pay a fine Rs. 51/-; petitioner No. 1 is the master of petitioner No. 2. 2. It appears that there is a parcel of land -either within or near the boundary of forest known as Purnapani forest. On 26-6-1949, petitioner No. 2, under the orders of his master petitioner No. 1, was fixing pillars and getting trenches dug by coolies in the said parcel of land. According to the prosecution, this parcel of land falls within the boundary of Purnapani forest and the forest is a private protected forest of the Government. It is apparent that this forest, which was originally a private one, must have been taken over by the Government if at all under the Bihar Private Forests Act, namely, Bihar Act, IX of 1948. There are certain procedures laid down in the Act in order that a forest may be constituted into a private protected forest. Sec.30 of the said Act requires that, on certain conditions having been fulfilled which need not be laid down here, "the Provincial Government shall publish a notification in the official gazette specifying definitely, according to the boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be constituted a private protected forest and declaring the same to be a private protected forest from a date fixed by the notification, and from the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a private protected forest." In this case, the fact of digging the trench is practically admitted. The only question that has been raised in this Court is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the parcel of the land wherein the trench was being dug is a part of any private protected forest of the Government. It has been repeatedly held recently by this Court that the onus is on the prosecution in cases like these to establish that the forest is a private forest and that all the provisions dealing with the publication of notification and other procedures have been complied with. It has been repeatedly held recently by this Court that the onus is on the prosecution in cases like these to establish that the forest is a private forest and that all the provisions dealing with the publication of notification and other procedures have been complied with. Unfortunately, in this case there is nothing on the record to prove that any publication either under Sec.30 or under any other section was made covering the parcel of land on which trenches were being dug. Such being the position, the defence is perfectly justified to take shelter under the rule of onus. Unless it is conclusively established that the parcel of land wherein the trenches were being dug did in fact form part of a private protected forest, it cannot be said that any act done by anybody on the parcel of land amounts to any contravention of the provisions laid down in the Act. 3. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that as the fact was by implication admitted in the Courts below and further that the oral evidence given by the forest Beat Officer to that effect was not challenged, therefore that evidence amounts in law to the proof of the fact that the forest was a private forest. I am afraid that the oral evidence to that effect will not suffice to prove the factor essential for prosecution in the absence of the production either of the Gazette or a copy of the same, as observed in a number of cases decided by this Court. I may mention here in this connection the case decided by Rai J. in -- Lala Balram Lal V/s. The State, Cri Revn No 374 of 1951 disposed of on 2-7-1951 (A). It was also submitted on behalf of the State that in case it is necessary that the Gazette or a copy of the same be on the record, the same may be accepted at this stage in this Court. I think it is too late to do so because mere production of the Gazette will not be sufficient unless the boundary given therein is held to be covering the parcel of land wherein the trenches were dug. I think that, if the Gazette is brought on the record at this stage that will result in prejudice to the accused. 4. I think that, if the Gazette is brought on the record at this stage that will result in prejudice to the accused. 4. In the circumstances, therefore, the charge against the petitioners has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The application is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners are set aside. The fines, if paid shall be refunded.