ORDER.- Revision-petitioners, accused in C.C.No. 113 of 1978 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha, were convicted under section 27 (1) (d) (g) and 2 (c) of the Kerala Forest Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each Court under section 27 (1) (d) and (g) of the Act. No separate sentence was imposed for offence under section 27 (2) (c) of the Act. The conviction and sentences imposed were confirmed by the Court of Session, Thodupuzha in Crl. A. No. 52 of 1979. 2. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows: 1st revision petitione-has been granted lease in respect of portion of land known as Food Production Area, which is a part of the Thoduppuha Reserve Forest. The 1st revision petitioner together with other revision-petitioners trespassed into Chelakkadu are only Thodupuzha reserved forest, adjoining to the land in his possession and cut one irul tree, two anjili trees, two teak trees and also cut two anjili trees including one deadanjili tree from the food production area, cut them into pieces removed them and sawed them and thereafter they were removed to the residence of the first revision-petitioner in the food Production area and there they wereconverted in to door frames, window frames and other articles for the purpose of the house under construction by the first revision petitioner. This was noticed bythe Idikki Flyine Squad Range Officer, P.W. 6, on 9th October, 1977. He arranged the articles to be guarded as seizure was to be made by P.W.1, Forest Range Officer Thodu-puzha and therefore P.W. 6 left the place and came back the next day with P.W.-1 and others. Various articles were seized under Exhibit P-1 mahazar, signed by the forest officers, P.Ws. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as also two independent witnesses, P.Ws. 4 and 5. After the completion of the investigation, P.W.I laid the complaint before the trial Magistrate. Revision petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges framed by the trial Magistrate. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exhibits P-1 and P-2. Defence examined five witnesses and marked Exhibits D-1 to D.4. 4 and 5. After the completion of the investigation, P.W.I laid the complaint before the trial Magistrate. Revision petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges framed by the trial Magistrate. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exhibits P-1 and P-2. Defence examined five witnesses and marked Exhibits D-1 to D.4. Revision petitioners contended that the articles seized were not made from trees cut from the Food Production Area or the remaining part of the forest area, but were bought from other sources for the purpose of the house under construction by the first revision petitioner. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence and circumstances upheld the prosecution case and rejected the defence version. The decision of the trial Court has been upheld by the first appellate Court 3. The first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the notification regarding the declaration of reserve forest and its publication has not been properly proved and therefore, the prosecution has to fail on that ground. It is further contended that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the places from where the trees were alleged to have been cut and removed are included in the area declared to be reserved forest under Exhibit P-2 notification. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions. 4. Muhammed Kunhi and others v. Tahsildar, Hosdurg and others1 is a case where either the notification or a copy thereof was not produced and no attempt was made to prove the same. A Division Bench of this Court held that the same could be proved by the production of the gazette in which the notification has been published or by producing a certified copy of the notification and adducing evidence regarding publication in the gazette. In Crl. A.No. 248 of 19692, a Single Bench of this Court had to deal with a case where a mere typed copy of the notification not even attested by the Head of the Department and not a certified copy thereof was produced, and it was held to be not sufficient. In Executive Officer, Chalakkudy Panchayat v. V.P. Devassy3 a Full, Bench of this Court approved the principle laid down in the earlier decisions to the effect that judicial notice could not be taken of a notification under section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act and the same requires to be proved. In Executive Officer, Chalakkudy Panchayat v. V.P. Devassy3 a Full, Bench of this Court approved the principle laid down in the earlier decisions to the effect that judicial notice could not be taken of a notification under section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act and the same requires to be proved. In A.M. Antony v. Forest Range Officer,4 also a single Bench of this Court dealt with the mode of proof of such a notification. 5. The offences involved in this case are offences said to have been committed in reserved forest. section 3 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) confers power on the Government to constitute any and at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner provided in the Act. There should be a preliminary notification under section 4 , followed by the procedure prescribed in sections 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 14 and 15 , Ultimately when the proceedings prescribed in these sections have been taken, under section 19 of the Act, the Government may publish a notification in the Gazette specifying the limits of the forests which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification. Copies of the notification, also have to be published at the headquarters of each taluk in which any portion of the land included in such notification is situate, and in very town, village and headquarters of Panchayats in the neighbourhood of such land, and from the date so fixed in such notification the forest shall be deemed to be a “Reserved Forest”. Under section 21, Government has power to delimit the forests in certain cases. Under section 26, Government has power to declare any forest or any portion there of as no longer reserved forest. 6. Under section 85 of the Act, Travancore-Cochin Forest Act III of 1952 as well as certain Madras enactments were repealed. Sub- section (3) of section 85 of the Act states that all rules, orders issued, etc. under the repealed enactments shall be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, issued, etc., under this Act till new rules and enactments are made under the various sections of the Act. Sub- section (3) of section 85 of the Act states that all rules, orders issued, etc. under the repealed enactments shall be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, issued, etc., under this Act till new rules and enactments are made under the various sections of the Act. Provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Act were similar to those in the Kerala Act and section 19 of the former Act provided for notification regarding reserved forests and the publication of the same in the gazette and other places. section 101 of the Travancore-Cochin Act repealed Forest Regulation No. 2 of 1068 in force in the erstwhile Travancore-Cechin State. section 101 (3) of the Travancore Act gave life to all rules and orders made and issued under the repealed enactment. Forest Regulation No. 2 of 1068 also contained provisions similar to those in the Act. section 18 of the Regulation was similar to section 19 of the Act, enabling the Diwan to issue notification and publish the same in the gazette and also publish copies of the notification in the headquarters of the taluk, town, village, concerned. Thus, any notification issued under section 18 of the Regulation of 1068 would survive repeal of the Regulation by the Travancore-Cochin Act and the repeal of the latter Act by the Kerala Forest Act as long as a corresponding notification has not been made under the successor Acts. There is no dispute that such notification in regard to Thodupuzha Reserved Forest has not been made under the successor Acts. Therefore, any notification made under Regulation No. 2 of 1068 would be in force even now. I respectfully agree with the same view taken by Janaki Amma, J., in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Sasi1. 7. In view of the decisions referred to already, it would be no longer possible for anyone to contend that a notification declaring Reserved Forest is a notification of which judicial notice could be taken. section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved: section 57 of the Evidence Act enumerates the facts of which the Court must take judicial notice. section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved: section 57 of the Evidence Act enumerates the facts of which the Court must take judicial notice. On carefully going through the various facts enumerated in section 57 of the Evidence Act, it could be seen that they do not take in notification of the kind required to be issued under section 19 of the Act or under the corresponding provisions of the predecessor Acts, which is a notification issued in exercise of the executive functions of the Government or the Department concerned. Therefore, judicial notice of a notification under section 19 of the Act cannot be taken. 8. There can be no dispute that notification issued under section 19 of the Act or under the corresponding provision of the Predecessor Acts is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act. It is a document forming acts of sovereign authority and of an executive public officer and therefore it is a public document. section 76 requires every public officer having the custody of public document, which any person has a right to inspect, to give that person, on demand, copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his office title and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. section 77 of the Evidence Act states that such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. Even apart from these provisions, Indian Evidence Act contains other provisions having a bearing on this question. section 78 of the Evidence Act prescribes the mode of proof of public documents enumerated therein. Sub-section(l)deals with Acts, orders of notifications of the Central Government in any of its departments, or of any State Government or any department of any State Government. Even apart from these provisions, Indian Evidence Act contains other provisions having a bearing on this question. section 78 of the Evidence Act prescribes the mode of proof of public documents enumerated therein. Sub-section(l)deals with Acts, orders of notifications of the Central Government in any of its departments, or of any State Government or any department of any State Government. Such Acts, orders or notifications may be proved by the records of the department certified by the heads of those departments respectively or by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government. section 79 of the Evidence Act states that, the Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which is duly certified by any officer of the State Government. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper 9. The effect of the above provisions is clear and unambiguous. A notification issued by the Government under section 19 of the Act can be proved by production of the original notification or a copy thereof certified by the Head of the Department. On production of certified copy, the Court shall presume its’ genuineness, the truth of its contents and the competency of the officer who certified it. Publication in the gazette can be proved by producing copy of the gazette publication or in other appropriate way. There is no reason why the Head of the Department, who is required to have custody of all gazette publications in regard to matters connected with his department should not certify the due publications in the gazette. The Court could act also on such certificate or evidence. 10. Exhibit P-2 is a certified copy of a gazette containing publication of the declaration regarding various parts of Thodupuzha Reserved Forest. The notification purports to have been issued under Regulation 18 of 1068 by the then Diwan of the Travancore State on 13th June, 1902. It purports to have been published in the Travancore Government Gazette No. 25, dated 24-6-2902 at page 569. The notification purports to have been issued under Regulation 18 of 1068 by the then Diwan of the Travancore State on 13th June, 1902. It purports to have been published in the Travancore Government Gazette No. 25, dated 24-6-2902 at page 569. It bears the certificate by the Chief Conservator of Forests, that is the Head of the Department, to the effect that it is true copy of the notification and giving the page number, date, etc., of the gazette notification. P.W. 1, Range Officer, has spoken to Exhibit P-2 and the certificate issued by the Head of the Department. It appears to me that the evidence is sufficient to prove the issue of the notification and the factum of publication in the gazette. 11. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that section 18 of Regulation of 1068 required that true copies of the notification shall also be published at the headquarters of each taluk, town village etc. concerned. The argument is that no evidence has been adduced to show that copies of the notification were published as required by the Regulations. It is true that no witness has spoken to such publication. Publication must have been effected in 1908. It is difficult to expect oral ordocumentary evidence of such publication in the headquarters of the town, taluk, village, panchayat etc. In these circumstances, section 114 of the Evidence Act can certainly be invoked and the Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events and public and private business. Official acts can be presumed to have been regularly performed. Thus, the publication of the copies of the notification in the various places can certainly be presumed. The argument of the revision petitioners that publication of the notification has not been proved in accordance with law is not sustainable. 12. The next argument is that there is no acceptable evidence to show that places from where trees were alleged to have been cut and removed are places included in the notified area. Exhibit P-2 notification declares the name and number of the Reserved Forest as Reserve No. 8 Thodupuzha, situated in Thodupuzha Taluk, Karikkod and Karimannur Pakuthis and Muvattupuzha Taluk, Kuttamangalam and Enanellur Pakuthis Notification also gives the four boundaries of the proximate area of 100 sq. miles comprised within the Reserve. Exhibit P-2 notification declares the name and number of the Reserved Forest as Reserve No. 8 Thodupuzha, situated in Thodupuzha Taluk, Karikkod and Karimannur Pakuthis and Muvattupuzha Taluk, Kuttamangalam and Enanellur Pakuthis Notification also gives the four boundaries of the proximate area of 100 sq. miles comprised within the Reserve. The mahazar read along with the oral evidence shows that the Food Production area and the adjoining area from which the trees were alleged to have been cut are places included in Thodupuzla Reserved Forest. The argument is that there must be specific evidence to show that where the boundaries mentioned in the notification lie and the position of the places within those boundaries. It is not that in every case such specific evidence is necessary. P.W. 1 has deposed that places from where the trees were cut, are in Chelakkadu Food Production area and the adjoining forest area in the Thodupuzha Forest Range of Thodupuzha Reserved Forest. The evidence of P.W. 6 also shows that places from where the trees were cut are at Chelakkadu of Thodupuzha Forest Range of Thodupuzha Reserved forest. It was suggested to them that portions of the land included in the Thodupuzha Reserved Forest have been assigned by the Government to various persons. They were not able to state anything regarding the same. Assuming that there have been such assignments, as long as the lands concerned are denotified, they would continue to foe reserved forest area. No suggestion was made during cross examination to the effect that the places from where trees were alleged to have been cut were included in the lands assigned to any particular person. Even the Food Production. Area cannot be said to have ceased to become Reserved Forest. First respondent has only been allowed to raise food crops in a portion of the reserved forest and the land continues to be reserved forest. Two Courts below have acted on the evidence adduced to hold that the places from where trees were cut are included in the Thodupuzha Reserved Forest. There is no reason to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is unsustainable or is not supported by legal evidence. 13. Two Courts below have acted on the evidence adduced to hold that the places from where trees were cut are included in the Thodupuzha Reserved Forest. There is no reason to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is unsustainable or is not supported by legal evidence. 13. Admittedly, a large number of timber pieces and articles fashioned as door frames, window frames, beams, etc., were seized from the shed in the possession of the first revision petitioner in the food production area Revision petitioners attempted to show that these articles were fashioned from logs purchased by the first revision petitioner from others. An attempt was made to prove this case by examining D.Ws. 1 to 5 and producing Exhibits D-1 to D-4. Two Courts below have carefully and elaborately considered this evidence and have chosen not to act on it. This conclusion of the Courts below it not attempted to be assailed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. His argument is that irrespective of the inability of the defence to prove the case put forward by it, prosecution must by independent proof establish that these articles were fashioned or made from the. trees cut from the reserved forest area. The proposition canvassed is no doubt true. Two Courts below have gone into the evidence and circumstances of the case elaborately to conclude that it can be safely accepted as proved that the articles seized from the first revision petitioner were made out of the trees out and removed from the reserved forest area. 14. There is the initial presumption under section 69 of the Act that the forest produce seized is presumed to be belonging to the Government until of course the contrary is proved. The contrary is not proved. That apart, the forest officers were able to see the bark of some of the trees cut. They could also see the stumps of the trees standing within the food production area and regular forest area within the Reserved Forest and were able to conclude that the seized articles were made from the trees so cut from these places. Of course, opinion of the forest officers is not sufficient to rest a conviction. Prosecution examined two witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3 to show that the trees in the Reserved Forest area were cut and converted into the seized articles. Of course, opinion of the forest officers is not sufficient to rest a conviction. Prosecution examined two witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3 to show that the trees in the Reserved Forest area were cut and converted into the seized articles. P.W. 2 did not support the prosecution case fully and he was treated as hostile. His evidence would, however, show that the first revision petitioner told him that he had cut the trees from the reserved forest area. He had also seen the cutting of the trees in the second or the third month of 1977. He was not prepared to say who cut the trees. At another stage he stated that he saw the revision petitioner at the place of cutting the trees. P.W. 3, who resides nearby, has deposed that he had seen trees being cut by the revision petitioner in February, 1977, and the same being sawn and carpentry work done on the same. Two Courts below have considered the evidence of these witnesses and chose to act on the evidence of P.W. 3, which was, to some extent, corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. I find no reason to hold that the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below is unreasonable or per verse. The findings of the Courts below rested on legal evidence. 15. It is argued that under the provisions referred to above, there must be specific evidence to show that each tree so cut was worth Rs.100 or more. The evidence of the forest officers is that cutting of the seven trees caused a loss of Rs. 4,700 to the Government. In the circumstances, it is safe to hold that the value of each tree exceeded Rs. 100. 16. In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Court of Session. The Criminal revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Criminal revision petition dismissed.