JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 26(I)(i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 65-, in default, to simple imprisonment for 15 days. Prosecution case is that at about 7 a.m. on 12-2-1963, the Petitioner shot a barking deer (Kutura) with his gun in the B class Government Reserved Forest of Shikharapur. The Petitioner admitted that be shot a barking deer in his brinjal Taila but not in the reserved forest. The learned Courts below rejected the defence plea that he shot a barking deer in his brinjal Taila and held that it was shot the forest which is a reserved forest. 2. It is conceded by Mr. Misra that if the forest is a reserved forest, the conviction cannot be assailed. He, however, contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that the forest in question is a reserved forest and that such a case could be proved only by producing the notification declaring it to be a reserved forest. The contention requires careful examination. 3. Section 26(1)(i) of the Act is as follows: 26. (1) Any person who, in a reserved forest (i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the State Government, hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares, ... shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid. An essential ingredient of the offence is that the shooting must be in a reserved forest. Section 20 of the Act prescribes that a notification is to be issued declaring a forest reserved. It is only after the events referred to in Sub-section (1)(a), (b) and (c) of Section 26 (which need not be quoted in extenso) have occurred that the State Government shall publish a notification the official Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 prescribes that from the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 prescribes that from the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest. Admittedly in this case the notification has not been proved. Prosecution has, however, given oral evidence that the forest in question is a reserved forest. The question for consideration is whether in the absence of any notification, the Court can find on the basis of the oral evidence that the forest in question is a reserved forest. This question was directly considered in Mansid Oraon and Another Vs. The King. The learned Chief Justice held that oral evidence cannot substitute the notification to prove a particular forest to be reserved. The relevant observation was to the effect - The prosecution has, by oral evidence, endeavoured to prove that the land in question falls within certain boundary pillars. Presumably it was intended to imply that these were the boundary marks referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 20. It may be that they are so; but for the purpose of proving the guilt of the Petitioners it is necessary to show not only that they did the acts mentioned in Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 26(1), but also that they were not entitled to do those acts because there had been a notification issued u/s 20(1) specifying the limits of the forest and that the land in question fell within those limits. With respect I may say that the aforesaid observation correctly states the law. In this case, though there is oral evidence that the land where the deer was shot fell within the limits of the forest, the further ingredient that the forest itself is in the reserved forest had not been established. The conviction cannot therefore be be supported. 4. Mr. Mohapatra placed reliance on 1963 M.P.L.J.(Notes 37) in support of his contention that oral evidence is admissible and sufficient to prove that a particular forest is a. reserved forest. As the report is' not before the Court, no view need be expressed as to its correctness. The Patna view also receives support from a decision 'of the Supreme Court in Union of India representing the Union Territory of Tripura v. Abdul Jaw and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. 76, though it has, no direct application to the facts of this case. 5. Mr. The Patna view also receives support from a decision 'of the Supreme Court in Union of India representing the Union Territory of Tripura v. Abdul Jaw and Ors. 1965 S.C.D. 76, though it has, no direct application to the facts of this case. 5. Mr. Mohapatra placed reliance on Section 20-A (1), inserted in the Act by Section 2 of Orissa Act 11 of 1954. It runs as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act to in any other law for the time being in force, any forest land or waste-land in the merged territories, Which had been recognised by the Ruler of any merged State immediately before the date of merger as a reserved forest in pursuance of any law, custom, rule, regulation, order or notification for the time being in force or which had been dealt with as such in any administration report or in accordance with any working plan, or register maintained or acted upon immediately before the said date and has been continued to be so dealt with thereafter, shall be deemed to be reserved forests for the purposes of this Act. It has not He en established by the prosecution that the forest in question in the ex-State of Khandapara had been recognised by the Ruler immediately before the date of merger as reserved forest in pursuance of any law, custom, rule resolution, order or notification. None of the conditions prescribed in the Sub-section has been established by the prosecution. The forest in question therefore cannot be deemed to be a reserved forest on the length of Section 20-A (1) of the Act. 6. In Mansid Oraon and Another Vs. The King, the following observation has been made - this is merely one of the many instances to which this Court has continually invited Government's attention to the utter carelessness with which prosecutions in this province are conducted. Neither the Public Prosecutors nor the magistracy seem to take the slightest care to bring on to the record those notifications and orders which are essential for proving that the accused has acted in contravention of the law. Until they do so, it seems to be a waste of public time and money to prosecute at all, because whenever convictions are challenged in this Court they have to be set aside when there are omissions of this nature. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid observation. Until they do so, it seems to be a waste of public time and money to prosecute at all, because whenever convictions are challenged in this Court they have to be set aside when there are omissions of this nature. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid observation. 7. For reasons discussed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted. Fines, if paid, should be refunded. The revision is allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed