Judgment :- 1. The respondent was charged with offences under S.27(2)(c) and (d) of the Kerala Forest Act. The case against him is that on 26th November, 1971 he trespassed along with two other persons into the Teak Plantation in the Reserve Forest at Ayiranalloor, cut down six teak trees and attempted to remove the poles. The poles would have fetched Rs. 30/- in the locality. The forest guards obstructed them. After investigation, the three persons were charged with the offences already mentioned. Since two of them pleaded guilty and were convicted, the case against the respondent was, refiled as C.C. 461 of 1974 of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st class, Punalur. The respondent who pleaded not guilty was acquitted after trial. The appeal is filed against the order of acquittal. 2. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses. All of them are employees of the Forest Department. P. Ws 1 and 2, guards of the Ayiranalloor ward of the Anchal Forest Range were on patrol duty on 26 -11-1971. They found the three persons including the respondent carrying the teak-wood posts. P.Ws.1 and 2 stopped them and seized the teak posts under a mahazar, Ext. P1. Both the above witnesses speak to the above facts. , P.W 2 claims that he knew the respondent for 6 or 7 years prior to the occurrence. P.W.3 is a Section Forester of the Anchal Range. The mahazar prepared by P.Ws.1 and 2 was sent to this witness. He inspected the scene and checked the seized articles. These witnesses have been cross-examined on behalf of the respondent. Eventhough the respondent denied the allegations put forward, there are no reasons made out for discrediting the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they saw the respondent carrying teak wood poles. There is, however, no evidence to show that he himself cut any tree or from where the poles were taken. The contention put forward on behalf of the State is that the place where the respondent was found carrying the teak poles was a Reserved Forest. This is challenged. 3. Under S.3 of the Kerala Forest Act, the Government may constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner provided under the Act. The contention put forward on behalf of the State is that the place where the respondent was found carrying the teak poles was a Reserved Forest. This is challenged. 3. Under S.3 of the Kerala Forest Act, the Government may constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner provided under the Act. Under S.4, whenever it is proposed to constitute any land a Reserved Forest, the Government should publish a notification in the Gazette specifying as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land and declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land as Reserved Forest. S.6 mentions the mode of publication of the notification under S.4. Thereafter an enquiry is to be held for deciding claims and objections. S.19 of the Act provides for a final notification declaring forests reserved. This notification is to be published in the Gazette specifying the limits of the forests which it is intended to reserve and declaring the name to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification. Copies of the notification are to 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 neighbourhood of such land. From the date so fixed, the forest shall be deemed to be a Reserved Forest. S.21 confers on the Government the power to redefine the limits of Reserved Forests is certain cases. Under S.27(2)(c) and(d) any person who trespasses a Reserved Forest or fells or removes any tree therefrom the value of which does not exceed one hundred rupees would be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. 4. The acts attributed to the respondent, if proved, would constitute an offence under S.27(2)(c) and (d), only if it is established that the area trespassed or from which the trees were cut and removed came within the definition of a Reserved Forest. Ext. P3 is a true copy of a notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act, II of 1068 taken from the register of reserves maintained at the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests. Ext. P3 is a true copy of a notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act, II of 1068 taken from the register of reserves maintained at the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests. An objection has been raised that being a copy of the notification certified only by the Chief Conservator of Forests, it is not properly proved. The objection has no force. A notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act is a public document and under S.77 of the Evidence Act, a certified a copy may be produced in proof of it. The Chief Conservator of Forests as the Head of the Department is an officer competent to certify to the correctness of the copy in view of S.78 and 79 of the Evidence Act. The decisions in Pyli v. State of Kerala (1966 KLT.102) and Chandrasekharan v. State (1966 KLT. 638) relied upon by the respondent have no application to the present case. 5. The Travancore Forest Act stood replaced by the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act of 1951 which in turn was repealed by the Kerala Forest Act. S.19 of the Kerala Forest Act corresponds to S.19 of the Travancore-Cochin Act, and S.18 of the Travancore Forest Act. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent is that Ext. P3 cannot be taken as notification issued under the Kerala Forest Act and as such, there is no notification declaring the area covered by Ext. P3 as Reserved Forest under the Kerala Forest Act. It is common case that no notification as such has been issued under S.19 of the Kerala Forest Act. It is also not the case of the appellant-State that a notification had been issued under the repealed Travancore-Cochin Forest Act. The appellant, however, contends that in the light of Ext. P3 taken along with S.85(3) of the Kerala Forest Act, no further notification is necessary under the Kerala Forest Act. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent on the other hand is that S.85(3) saves only notifications issued under the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act and not those issued under the Travancore Forest Act. Though prima facie, the objection sounds as tenable, on an anxious consideration of the matter, I think that it has to be overruled, in view of S 101(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, S.85(3) of the Kerala Forest Act and S.23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. Though prima facie, the objection sounds as tenable, on an anxious consideration of the matter, I think that it has to be overruled, in view of S 101(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, S.85(3) of the Kerala Forest Act and S.23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. S.101 (3) of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act runs as follows: "All rules prescribed, appointments made, powers conferred and orders issued under the enactments hereby repealed shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, made, conferred and issued hereunder." S. 85 (3) of the Kerala Forest Act reads: "All rules prescribed, appointments made, powers conferred and orders issued under the enactments hereby repealed shall be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, made, conferred and issued hereunder till new rules and enactments are made under the various sections of this Act." S. 23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act is as follows: "Where any Act is repealed or re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the repealed Act shall, so far as it is not Inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted." It is significant to note that the provisions relating to notification, enquiry and declaration are the same in all the three enactments. By virtu.e of S.101 (3) of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, a notification issued under the Forest Act should be deemed to be a notification issued under the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act. That the formalities prescribed for a notification under S.19 of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act are not proved to have been followed does not make any difference. If Ext. P3 had become a notification issued under the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act for all purposes, there is no reason why Ext. P3 notification should be excluded from the operation of S.85 (3) of the Kerala Forest Act. In other words, Ext. P3 should be deemed to be a notification issued under S.19 of the Kerala Act also. If Ext. P3 had become a notification issued under the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act for all purposes, there is no reason why Ext. P3 notification should be excluded from the operation of S.85 (3) of the Kerala Forest Act. In other words, Ext. P3 should be deemed to be a notification issued under S.19 of the Kerala Act also. It is argued that neither S.101 (3) nor S.85 (3) makes mention of notifications but only to rules, appointments, powers and orders and, therefore, the notifications are not saved by S.85 (n. But since the above sections refer to orders issued under the Acts repealed, orders declaring an area as Reserved forest under the Travancore Act are saved by virtue of the provisions referred. Assuming that they are not saved by the above provisions, S.23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act comes into play. There is no scope for doubt that an area notified as Reserved Forest under the Travancore Forest Act and Travancore-Cochin Forest Act will continue as Reserved Forest under the Kerala Forest Act until it is otherwise declared by another notification. 6. Then the question is whether there is evidence to show that the respondent trespassed and removed trees from any area covered by Ext. P3 notification. The evidence of pws.1 and 2 is that the respondent was found at Kochumammoottu in Ayiranalloor Plantations. There are no clear materials which will go to show that the area is included in Ext. P3 notification. pw. 4, who proves the notification has not visited the place of occurrence and as such, his evidence is not helpful in the matter. It is also noted that eventhough the occurrence took place on 26-11-1971, the complaint was filed in Court only on 8-2-74. The long delay in filing the complaint and the absence of clear proof regarding actual place of occurrence and whether it is included in Ext. P3 notification are sufficient reasons for not interfering with the order of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Dismissed.