Judgment : 1. The petitioners challenge the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence passed under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. Though the complaint was filed alleging offence under Section 27 (1) (e)(iii) also, the accused were found not guilty of that offence. Since there is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the act complained of, the only point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the prosecution contended that the area alleged to have been trespassed upon by the accused is a reserve forest, the original or the certified copy of the notification issued under Section 19 of the Act was not produced before the court and so the conviction is unsustainable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that production of the original or the certified copy of the notification under Section 19 is a pre-requisite for finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Act. It is argued that what was produced before the court was only an unattested photocopy of the notification. 2. On the premise that, what was produced was only an unattested copy of the notification, arguments were addressed at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the conviction is unsustainable. In Chacko Paily and others versus State of Kerala – 1966 KLT 102, a Division Bench of this court held: “It is a pre-requisite for a person to be held guilty under Sec. 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 S.27 of the Act.” Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners that it is the duty of the prosecution to have established that the act complained of was done in 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 and by producing a certified copy of the notification evidencing the same. The decision in State of Kerala versus Kuttan Panicker 1970 KLT Short Note case Page No. 17 has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The decision in State of Kerala versus Kuttan Panicker 1970 KLT Short Note case Page No. 17 has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That was a case where the document which was produced in that case was only some typed papers purporting to be the notification. It was not a certified copy nor was it attested by the head of the department as required under Section 78 of the Evidence Act. Another decision in A.M. Antony versus Forest Range Officer 1977 KLT 691 was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That was also a case where the notification issued under the Forest Act constituting the area where the offence was committed as a reserved forest was not marked or proved and as such it was held that the conviction is unsustainable. 3. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally untenable and misplaced. Ext.P2 is the copy of the gazette notification which was attested by the Chief Conservator of Forest. There is a clear certificate in Ext.P2 that it is the copy of the notification published in page No. 569 of the Travancore Government gazette No. 25 dated 24.06.1902 under date 13th June 1902. It was attested on 07.02.1994. The designation seal of the Chief Conservator of Forest and the office seal are seen affixed on it. It was held by this court in State of Kerala versus Adichan Sasi 1975 KLT 839 thus: “A notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act is a public document and under S.77 of the Evidence Act, a certified 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 Ss.78 and 79 of the Evidence Act.” 4. Since it was attested by the Chief Conservator of Forest as the head of the department who is competent to certify to the correctness of the copy, the arguments to the contrary advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is only to be turned down. It is also important to note that when Ext.P2 was produced and marked before the trial court through the competent officer, no question was put challenging the validity or admissibility of Ext.P2. 5. It is also important to note that when Ext.P2 was produced and marked before the trial court through the competent officer, no question was put challenging the validity or admissibility of Ext.P2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners then argues that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were found inside the reserve forest. There is clear, cogent and convincing that the petitioners were found removing sawn pieces of wood from the reserved forest by head load. They could not account for their presence in the forest with the sawn logs of wood. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 27(1) (e) (iii) of the Act only because there was difference in the name of the species of tree referred to by them. In the complain it was stated that the wooden logs were of venteak whereas in evidence it came out that the logs were of vellilavu. But at the same time, it is in evidence that the tree which was cut and sawn into logs was about 60 meters away from the place where the accused were seen removing the logs. That was ascertained by seen the remaining stumps of that tree. Ext.P1 mahazar gives a detailed description of the same. There is evidence to show that when this mahazar was produced, the Forester (PW.3) went to the spot and inspected the same on 05.01.1995 and certified that the facts mentioned in Ext.P1 are correct. The said endorsement made by PW.3 was separately marked as Ext.P1 (a). The offence was detected on 02.01.1995. PW.1 and PW.2, the Forest Guards have sworn that the scene of occurrence was part of Uppukkunnu Villanthandu Perikkassery beet of Thodupuzha forest range. That was the fact which was subsequently got ascertained and certified by PW.3 as correct. Those aspects could not be properly assailed by the defence. The description of the sawn wooden logs carried by the petitioners were also narrated in Ext.P1 mahazar. Though, a vague contention was raised by the defence to the effect that, there is a road or path way passing through the forest, that could not be substantiated by the defence. There was no case for the defence that the petitioners had any right or authority to enter into that reserved forest. Though, a vague contention was raised by the defence to the effect that, there is a road or path way passing through the forest, that could not be substantiated by the defence. There was no case for the defence that the petitioners had any right or authority to enter into that reserved forest. The very fact that they were found carrying sawn wooden logs would futher fortify the case of the prosecution that they trespassed into the reserve forest for the purpose as mentioned above and as much the conviction under Section 27(1) (e) (iv) is well merited. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are poor villagers and so leniency may be shown to them. The minimum punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for 1 year and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000/-. No discretion is given to the court under the provision to award a lesser punishment. Showing leniency to trespassers and poachers into the forest is not proper or conducive. The forest is the wealth of the nation. It is getting depleted so fast that the percentage of forest which was available in the State is getting reduced to a considerable extent every year affecting natural flora and fauna and also the biodiversity which in turn would affect the rainfall and would upturn the ecological balance. Lush evergreen forests are the invaluable assets to be protected from encroachers. There is a duty cast on us to preserve the same lest the posterity should curse. It was bearing in mind the necessity to preserve the forest, the minimum punishment was prescribed by the legislature. The court cannot ignore that statutory mandate. Showing undeserving leniency to such encroachers would only encourage encroachment. Forest wealth cannot be allowed to be denuded by promoting or encouraging such destructive activities. 7. The learned Magistrate awarded only the minimum punishment prescribed; namely simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. As such the sentence awarded by the courts below cannot be interfered with. In the result this revision is dismissed. The learned Magistrate will take steps immediately to execute the sentence.