Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.- These Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of prosecutions for offences under section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (IV of 1962) hereinafter referred to as the Act. A common question of law arises in all these petitions and they are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. Section 27 of the Act deals with penalties for trespass or damage in Reserved Forests. Sections 4 to 18 of the Act provide for the determination of the rights in the land which is to be constituted as a Reserved Forest. Then comes section 19 under which the Reserved Forest is eventually constituted. Section 19 of the Act is in the following terms. “When the proceedings prescribed in the preceding sections have been taken, 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. ***** From the date so fixed the forest shall be deemed to be a ‘Reserved Forest’.” Section 22 of the Act provides that “no right of description shad be acquired in or over a Reserved Forest except under a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government or by or on behalf of some person in whom such right or the power to create such right was vested when the notification under section 19 was published or by succession from such person”. It is a pre-requisite for a person to be held guilty under section 27 of the Act that there should be a notification under section 19 duly published in the Gazette. In the absence of such a notification the accused could not be found guilty, for contravention of the provisions of section 27 of the Act. In all the cases which gave rise to these Criminal Revision Petitions neither the notification published under section 19 of the Act nor a copy thereof was produced. The question raised in these Criminal Revision Petitions is whether without the production of the notification issued under section 19 of the Act the conviction under section 27 can be sustained? In all the cases which gave rise to these Criminal Revision Petitions neither the notification published under section 19 of the Act nor a copy thereof was produced. The question raised in these Criminal Revision Petitions is whether without the production of the notification issued under section 19 of the Act the conviction under section 27 can be sustained? On behalf of the accused it is submitted apart from proving the commission of the acts mentioned in section 27 of the Act, the prosecution must also prove the existence of a notification issued under section 19 of the Act specifying the limits of the forest which is intended to be reserved and declaring the same to be Reserved from the date fixed in the notification and the publication of the same in the Gazette. It was contended that this can be proved only by the production of the Gazette containing the notification itself and no other evidence can be acted upon. A Court is not under section 57 of the Evidence Act entitled to take judicial notice of a notification issued by the Government under section 19 of the Act. But such a notification is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act. What is the mode of proof of the contents of the notification. The publication of the notification has to be in the Gazette. Section 78 of the Evidence Act prescribes special modes of proving the contents of various kinds of public documents. Section 61 of the Evidence Act embodies the rule that "contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence". ‘Primary evidence’ is defined in section 62 while section 63 gives an inclusive definition of ‘secondary evidence’. The contents of public documents can also be proved by production of secondary evidence. Section 65 allows secondary evidence being given when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74 or in case when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by the Evidence Act or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence section 65 of the Evidence Act says that certified copy of the document but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible. If the Official Gazette containing the notification under the Act is produced in Court it has to presume its genuineness under section 81 of the Act. In view of these provisions of the Evidence Act it was the duty of the prosecution to have established one of the ingredients of the offence viz., that the act complained of was done in a forest constituted as a Reserved Forest by the issue of a notification under section 19 of the Act and by the publication of the same in the Gazette, either by the production of the Gazette or by a certified copy of thenotification and adduce evidence of the publication of the same in the Gazette. No other evidence is admissible in the case. The above view is supported by the decision in Mansid Oraon v. The King1, and Jai Gopal Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer2. These are cases which arose out of prosecutions against illegal acts done in a forest area constituted as a Reserved Forest by notification issued. In Mathuradas v. State3, the question arose whether the Court could take judicial notice of a notification fixing the retail price of yarn under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette. Their Lordships held "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". In Pannalal v. State4, the question arose as to the method of proving the maximum price notified by the Textile Commissioner in a case where the accused was charged for having contravened the provision of the Madhya Bharat Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. While holding that the Court cannot take judicial notice of the notification under section 57 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships said, "One of the essential ingredients of the crime that has to be proved is the maximum price notified by the Textile Commissioner. This fact has to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. In the present case, the maximum price of the dhotis has not been admitted by the accused. Nor is it a fact in regard to the existence of which a presumption can be drawn under the Evidence Act. This fact has to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. In the present case, the maximum price of the dhotis has not been admitted by the accused. Nor is it a fact in regard to the existence of which a presumption can be drawn under the Evidence Act. The notification issued by the Textile Commissioner specifying the maximum price was also not produced and proved. That being so, it cannot clearly be held that the maximum price of the dhoti said to have been sold by the applicant Ram Narayan was Rs. 13-2-9." Before leaving these cases it is necessary to bring to the notice of he authorities in charge of the prosecutions the observations of Agarwala, C.J., in Mansid Oraon v. The King1, to the following effect: "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." In the result, the conviction and sentence entered against the accused in all these cases are set aside and the accused are acquitted. The Criminal Revision Petitions are thus allowed. M.C.M. ----- Petitions allowed.