JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - This is an application in revision on behalf of Doctor Chaman Lal and his son Balram who have been convicted u/s 15 of the U.P. Private Forests Act (No. VI of 1949) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. 2. A notification was issued by the Government u/s 3, Sub-clause (3) of the U.P. Forests Act which is in very cryptic terms since it merely says: The Governor is pleased to declare all forest lands in the U.P. other than those mentioned in Section 2 of the said Act to be forests for the purpose of the said Act. 3. It is left to every person to determine to himself whether any land is forest land. No description or any boundaries of any forest land is given. 4. In the present case the plot of land bore No. 92/4. It was formerly banjar land of which Chaman Lal applicant was the lessee. In 1951 when he wanted to bring the land under cultivation, he made a reference to the Divisional Forest Officer informing him that he would like to bring the land under cultivation. The Divisional Forest Officer by his letter dated 18th of September, 1951 informed him that: As the plot in question contains scattered growth of young khair and shisham trees, old somal, palm and bushes of Rohni, Kura and Jhari-Bari, no cultivation could be allowed. 5. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that inspite of the information conveyed to Chaman Lal by the Divisional Forest Officer, the two applicants cleared the land of certain trees and bushes and brought it under cultivation. If there were only scattered young trees and bushes, the area could not be called "forest" within the meaning of the notification unless it had been described by boundaries or by numbers or by reference to the village. This was not done. Consequently the sparse young trees which existed on this land would not make the land "forest" within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act. The area could not be called "forest" within the meaning of the notification because the notification did not describe the boundaries or the number of the land or the reference to the village. In this view of the matter no offence can be said to have been committed, punishable u/s 15 of the Act. The area could not be called "forest" within the meaning of the notification because the notification did not describe the boundaries or the number of the land or the reference to the village. In this view of the matter no offence can be said to have been committed, punishable u/s 15 of the Act. The applicants are, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. I allow their application and set aside their conviction and sentence passed against them. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded.