Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 4, Salem acquitting the accused who has been charged for an offence under section 21(d), (e) and (f) , read with sections 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. 2. The allegation against the accused was that he was found in possession of seven sandalwood pieces of above 5 kilograms of the value of Rs. 745 in the Reserved Forest of Thirumanur on 17th June, 1978, at about 6-30 a.m. The prosecution case is that this offence was detected by P.W. 1, Forest Range Officer, Rasipuram while he was on his usual rounds with the Forest and other officials of the Forest Department at the Reserve Forest in Thirumanur. As the accused had no licence he was arrested by P.W. 1, the Forest Range Officer, and hammer marks were placed on the sandalwood pieces and they were seized under a mahazar. The accused gave a confession statement, Exhibit P-2, voluntarily which was written by P.W. 2, the Forester. Later, the Forest Range Officer laid the complaint before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 4, Salem. 3. The defence was that the accused was taken to the Forest Range Office and his signature was obtained on a paper and that on the date of occurrence he was at Namagiripettai sleeping in a mill. 4. The learned trial Magistrate found that out of the seven pieces of sandalwood, five alone contained the hammer marks and he accorded the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 5. It is contended for the State that the Court having found hammer marks on five pieces of sandalwood, ought to have convicted the accused under section 36-A. It is pointed out for the respondent that there were no hammer marks on two of the pieces and in the absence of proof that the pieces which contained hammer mark weighed in excess of five kilograms, the respondent cannot be convicted of the offence under section 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. There is no oral evidence to show that the five pieces exceeded five kilograms. There is no oral evidence to show that the five pieces exceeded five kilograms. But, my attention was invited by the learned Public Prosecutor to Exhibit P-3, the statement, which showed that the total weight of the sandalwood seized was 14,900 kilograms and the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that even if the weight of the two pieces which did not contain hammer marks is excluded and not taken into account, the weight of the five remaining pieces would far exceed five kilograms. It is no doubt true that Exhibit P-3 has been admitted in evidence. But, no one speaks about the contents of Exhibit P-3. Though P.W. 2 makes a reference to Exhibit P-3 as the list of properties given to Court, he admitted in cross-examination that there is nothing in Exhibit P-3 to show as to who seized the sandalwood pieces from the accused and from which place they were seized. Exhibit P-3 only says “List of sandalwood billets produced before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, No. 4, Salem, on 17th June, 1978”, and it is signed by the Forest Range Officer, Rasipuram. There is no reference that these billets were seized from the accused or that they were concerned in the crime. There is no reference to the weight of the seven billets in the confession statement, Exhibit P-2 alleged to have been given by the accused. There is clear admission by P.W. 2 that the accused admitted that he does not know to read and write, that he knows only to sign and that the confession statement was written by P.W. 2. A reading of Exhibit F-2 would show that an illiterate man like the accused would not have given the statement as found in Exhibit P-2. There is therefore, no proof of the fact that the accused was in possession of sandalwood in excess of five kilograms. Much reliance, therefore, cannot be placed on Exhibit P-3. 6. But, the Counsel for the respondent raised another point of greater importance and that is, the prosecution has not marked the notification declaring Thirumanur Forest as a reserve forest and that there is no proof that the accused was apprehended within the limits of that forest. Much reliance, therefore, cannot be placed on Exhibit P-3. 6. But, the Counsel for the respondent raised another point of greater importance and that is, the prosecution has not marked the notification declaring Thirumanur Forest as a reserve forest and that there is no proof that the accused was apprehended within the limits of that forest. But, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Chattanatha Karayalar v. The Executive Officer, Puthalam Panchayat1 to show that the Court can take judicial notice of the existence of notifications in view of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. The charge against the petitioner in that case was that he was using two electric motors without taking a license as per law. The petitioner therein was convicted of an offence under section 111, read with section 181 of the Madras Panchayats Act. One of the grounds taken in that case was that the prosecution has failed to prove the notification under section 111 of the Act. The learned Judge (Mudaliar, J.), observed that the accused-petitioner in that case was fully aware of the existence of the notification issued by, the Government under section 111 of the Act, and a document containing a reference to the existence of the notification was filed by the defence itself and that apart, under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court can take judicial notice of the existence of the notification under section 111 of the Madras Panchayats Act. The present case, however, is different. There is no admission by the accused about the notification. Secondly, sub section (1) of section 57 of the Evidence Act, which alone is relevant, says that the Court shall take judicial notice of all laws in force in the territory of India. Whether a Government notification published in the Gazette is included within the meaning of the word “law” occurring in sub-section (1) of section 57 of the Evidence Act is a point which requires consideration. 7. In Mathuradas v. State1 the question as to whether a Court is entitled to take judicial notice of a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, was referred for consideration to a Division Bench. 7. In Mathuradas v. State1 the question as to whether a Court is entitled to take judicial notice of a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, was referred for consideration to a Division Bench. It was argued on behalf of the State in that case that a notification published in a Gazette is a part of the law of the land and that under section 57(1) of the Evidence Act, a Court is bound to take judicial notice thereof. The learned Judges made a reference to the term “law” defined in Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and to the term “existing law” in Article 366(10) of the Constitution of India and also to the term “Indian Law” defined in section 3(29) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and pointed out that even if the definition of “Indian Law ” in the General Clauses Act is accepted as the definition of “law” in force in the territory of India, a notification cannot be said to be included within it. They answered the reference in the following terms: “We are of opinion that a Court is not entitled to take judicial notice of a notification published in the Gazette and that the fact of the publication of the notification has to be proved in the manner provided for in section 78, Evidence Act.” A Full Bench of the Indore Bench of Madhya Bharat High Court in State v. Gopal Singh2, took the view that judicial notice can be taken of a notification issued by the Government or any competent authority in the exercise of delegated power of legislation and that judicial notice cannot be taken of a notification issued by any authority in the exercise of its Executive functions and that under the last paragraph of section 57 of the Evidence Act, the Court has a discretion to refuse to take judicial notice of a notification made in the delegated power of the legislation unless the notification is produced. In Collector of Cawnpore v. Jugal Kiskore3 Sulaiman, J., was of the view that the Court cannot take judicial notice of the Government notification under section 57, Evidence Act, as Government notifications do not come under that section, but the production of the Gazette printed under the authority of the Government would have been sufficient proof of the notification under section 78 of the Evidence Act. In State of Bihar v. Munshi Kahar1 a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna had to consider proof of notification under section 30 of the Forest Act, 1957. Section 39 of that Act lays down that the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette prohibit as from a date fixed by the notification, amongst other things, the breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in such forest. Section 31 of the Act lays down that the Collector shall cause a translation into the local vernacular of every notification issued under section 30 to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the notification. The learned Judges held that the mere production of the Bihar Gazette containing the notification is not enough and it would also have to be proved that the notification had been published in accordance with the provision contained in section 31 of the Act. 8. In this case, I have not been referred to any provision in the Tamil Nadu Forest Act analogous to sections 30 and 31 of the Bihar Forest Act, 1927. But, a reference to section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act shows that whenever it is proposed to constitute any land a reserved forest, the Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette and in the Official Gazette of the district. But, a reference to section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act shows that whenever it is proposed to constitute any land a reserved forest, the Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette and in the Official Gazette of the district. So also section 6 says that when a notification has been issued under section 4, the Forest Settlement Officer shall publish in the Official Gazette of the district and in the head quarters of each taluk in which any portion of the land included in such notification is situated, and in every town and village in the neighbourhood of such land a proclamation specifying, as early as possible, the situation and limits of the land proposed to be included within the reserved forests, etc., and fixing a period not less than three months from the date of publication of such proclamation in the Official Gazette of the district and requiring every person claiming any right referred to in section 4 either to present to such officer, within such period, a written notice specifying or to appear before him within such period and state the nature of such right and in either case to produce all documents in support thereof. Section 16 says that when the period fixed under section 6 for preferring claims has elapsed and all the claims made within such period have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer, and after the period fixed for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed and all proceedings prescribed by section 10 have been taken, the Government may publish a notification in the Official Gazette specifying the limits of the forest which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification. The section further says that the Forest Settlement Officer shall before the date so fixed publish such notification in the manner prescribed for the proclamation under section 6 and from the date so fixed, such forest shall be deemed to be reserved forest. There is no proof in this case whether the notification was published in the manner prescribed for the proclamation under section 6. 9. There is no proof in this case whether the notification was published in the manner prescribed for the proclamation under section 6. 9. I am in respectful accord with the view taken by Sulaiman, J., in Collector of Cownpore v. Jugal Kishore1 that judicial notice of a Government notification cannot be taken by the Court under section 57 of the Evidence Act, but the production of the Gazette printed under the authority of the Government will be sufficient proof of notification under section 78 of the Evidence Act. The same view with some modification was expressed by Subba Rao, as he then was in Public Prosecutor v. Thippayya2. The learned Judge observed: “Though a Court should take judicial notice of the facts mentioned in section 57, it could only take such notice if unimpeachable books or documents are put before it or otherwise accessible for its reference. Under the last paragraph, of the section, the Court is given the discretion to refuse to take judicial notice of any fact unless such person calling upon the Court to take any judicial notice of such fact produces any such book or document as it may be necessary to enable it to do so.” I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by Subba Rao, J., as he then was. Therefore, it is clear that even where the Court is required to take judicial notice of a notification, it car refuse to do so unless that notification is produced. As I am in respectful accord with the view taken by Sulaiman, J., in Collector of Cawnpore v. Jugal Kishore1 and the view taken by Subba Rao, J., in Public Prosecutor v. Thippayya2. I am not inclined to agree with the view taken by K.N. Mudaliar, J., in Chattanatha Karayalar v. The executive Officer, Puthalam Panchayal3 that under section 57 of the Evidence Act, the Court can take judicial notice of the existence of a notification. 10. In this case admittedly the notification was not filed. But, it is now sought to be filed in this appeal by the learned Public Prosecutor. As the notification published in the Official Gazette is a public document the same is admitted. What is the effect of the admission of the Gazette, is the next question that has to be answered. In this case admittedly the notification was not filed. But, it is now sought to be filed in this appeal by the learned Public Prosecutor. As the notification published in the Official Gazette is a public document the same is admitted. What is the effect of the admission of the Gazette, is the next question that has to be answered. If the Official Gazette containing the notification under the Act is produced in Court, its genuineness cannot be questioned in view of section 81 of the Evidence Act. But then, the mere production of the Gazette in Court will not establish the ingredients of the offences with which the accused is charged. There is absolutely no proof that the offence complained of was done in a forest constituting a reserved forest. I have also held that mere production of Exhibit P-3 cannot show that the respondent has committed an offence under section 36-A of the Act. Though the Gazette is filed in this case now, there is nothing in Exhibit P-3 to show by whom the billets were seized and from which place they were seized. P. W. 2 has admitted that there is no reference in Exhibit P-3 as to from whom the sandalwood pieces were seized and from which place they were seized. The order acquitting the accused is confirmed though not for the reasons stated by the Magistrate. 11. Before parting with the case, the following observation of Agarwala, C.J., in Monsid Oraon v. The King1 can be extracted with use: “Neither the Public Prosecutors nor the magistracy seem to take the slightest care to bring on 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.” 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Appeal dismissed.