JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This revision is against the Appellate judgment dated the 16th September, 1966 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 272 C of 1965, convicting Petitioners Udayanath and Bhimsen u/s 332, Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act) and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- on each-count, in default each to undergo R.I. for one month Petitioners Raghunath and Kistan have been convicted only u/s 26 of the Indian Forest Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- each, in default each to undergo R.I. for two weeks. 2. These four Petitioners along with 26 others were charged u/s 26 of the Act, and under Sections 147 and 332, Indian Penal Code for removing illicitly felled timbers from the Chandigarh reserved forest by means of buffalo-carts, and for assaulting the forest guards who obstructed them from this aforesaid illegal act. The trial Court convicted 29 of the 30 accused persons under Sections 147 and 332, Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Act; the remaining one having died in course of the trial. In appeal, 25 of the accused persons were acquitted of all the charges, and conviction of these above named four Petitioners as mentioned above was maintained. 3. At the outset, Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the forest in question was a reserved forest, as the Gazette Notification u/s 20 of the Act was not produced, nor the publication of the Notice as prescribed u/s 21 of the said Act was proved in this case. The Courts below, while convicting the Petitioners u/s 26 of the Act, proceeded on the basis that it was proved on the oral evidence of p.ws. 2 to 5 the employees of the Forest Department that the forest in question was a Reserved Forest. Mr. Mohanty challenged this finding as illegal. He, in support of his contention, cited the decision of this Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India representing the Union of India (UOI) Vs. 2 to 5 the employees of the Forest Department that the forest in question was a Reserved Forest. Mr. Mohanty challenged this finding as illegal. He, in support of his contention, cited the decision of this Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India representing the Union of India (UOI) Vs. Abdul Jalil and Others wherein it is held as follows: In order to constitute an offence u/s 26(1) the acts specified in the clauses of the section should be committed in an area which is a 'reserved forest' under the Act, On the terminology employed by the Indian Forest Act 'reserved forests' are those areas of forest land which are constituted as reserved forests under Chapter. II of the Act. It is the notification u/s 20 after complying with the procedure-prescribed by the other sections of the chapters commencing with Section 4 that constitutes of forest area a reserved forest within the Act. My attention was also drawn to the decision of the Patna High Court in The State of Bihar Vs. Munshi Kahar and Others wherein it is held as follows: In the first place, the mere production of the Bihar Gazette containing the notification of May 1958 is not enough. It would also have to be proved that the notification had been published in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Act, which reads thus: 31. The Collector shall cause a translation into the local vernacular of every notification issued u/s 30 to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the notification. Had this notification been brought on the record at the stage of the trial then it would have been open to the defence to plead, and, if necessary, to prove non-compliance of the provision of Section 31. It would, in my opinion, be prejudicial to the Respondents to assume at this stage that the notification had been duly published as required by the section. In this case this Lordships were concerned with a matter relating to a 'protected forest' and as such dealt with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act which in tenor and substance is identical with Section 21 of the Act, dealing with 'reserved forests'. 4. In this case this Lordships were concerned with a matter relating to a 'protected forest' and as such dealt with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act which in tenor and substance is identical with Section 21 of the Act, dealing with 'reserved forests'. 4. An identical question, as in the present case, came up for consideration in Santana Mahallik v. State 32 (1966) C.L.T. 299, wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K. Misra accepted with approval the observations made in Mansid Oraon and Another Vs. The King that '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 limit of the forest, and that the land in question fell within those limits. 5. This being the law on the subject, the oral evidence adduced by the Forest Officers would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the Petitioners u/s 26 of the Act in the absence of the production and proof of the Notification and its publication as provided u/s 21 of the Act. That being 80, the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 26 of the Act would not stand, as the notification u/s 20 has not been brought on record, and its publication as prescribed u/s 21 of the said Act has not been, provided. 6. Regarding the allegation of assault against Petitioners Udayanath and Bhimsen, I find that the Appellate Court on a proper discussion of the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 4 came to a definite finding that these two Petitioners assaulted the Forest Officers with fist blows. This finding of fact has been reached on careful consideration and assessment of the evidence and materials on record, and no compelling reasons have been made out to dislodge this concurrent finding of fact. I will therefore accept the above finding of fact. But since the forest in question from which the timbers were being removed has not, for reasons stated above, been legally proved to be a reserved forest, it cannot definitely be said that the Forest Officers, who obstructed the Petitioners from removing the timbers, acted strictly in due discharge of the duties imposed on them. But since the forest in question from which the timbers were being removed has not, for reasons stated above, been legally proved to be a reserved forest, it cannot definitely be said that the Forest Officers, who obstructed the Petitioners from removing the timbers, acted strictly in due discharge of the duties imposed on them. Hence the conviction of these two Petitioners u/s 332, Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained as such. 7. The facts however conclusively reveal that there public servants were acting in good faith under the bona fide belief that they were performing the official duties entrusted to them. Under these circumstances the plea of assaulting the Forest Officers in exercising the right of private defence would not be available to these two Petitioners, as there is no much right against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt if done or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though the act may not be strictly justifiable by Jaw (Section 99, Indian Penal Code) AIR 1930 Pat 3875 and AIR 1953 Nag 2928. In this view of the matter and on the con current finding of fact, both these two Petitioners are liable to be convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. 8. In the result, the conviction and sentence of all the Petitioners u/s 26 of the Indian Forest Act are set aside. The conviction of Petitioners Udayanath and Bhimsen u/s 332, Indian Penal Code is altered to a conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced thereunder each to pay a fine of Rs. 40/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two weeks. The revision accordingly is partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed