ORDER : The revision petitioners herein are the four accused in C.C.No.451/1999 of the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Ranny. They faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that on 10.1.1999 and on the previous day, they trespassed into the Government Reserve Forest within the Palappally Forest Station and cut and removed two trees for firewood. The offence was detected by the Forestor of the Palappally Forest Station, accompanied by some Forest Guards. They arrested the accused on the spot and seized the logs along with some weapons like an axe and a sword. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, a Form I report was sent to Court, and after necessary investigation, the Deputy Forest Range Officer filed final report in court. 2. The four accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under S.27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short “the Act”). The prosecution examined four witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. The MO1 and MO2 weapons were also identified during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. 3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found all the four accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under the two sections. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 9.7.2002, all the four accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta with Crl.A.No.178/2002. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction and sentence and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the accused are before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. 4. Of the four witnesses examined in the trial court, PW2 is the Section Forestor who detected the offence. He was accompanied by PW1 and PW3. PW4 is the Deputy Forest Range Officer who investigated the case and submitted final report. PW1 to PW3 have given evidence regarding the detection. They have also proved the arrest of the accused on the spot. But the crucial question is whether the accused were arrested at the Government Reserve Forest as alleged by the prosecution and also whether the prosecution has produced the necessary materials for a prosecution. 5. PW1 to PW3 have given evidence regarding the detection. They have also proved the arrest of the accused on the spot. But the crucial question is whether the accused were arrested at the Government Reserve Forest as alleged by the prosecution and also whether the prosecution has produced the necessary materials for a prosecution. 5. The prosecution relies on the Exts.P4 to P7 confession statements given by the accused. These statements will show that the statements were recorded by the Deputy Forest Range Officer examined as PW4. But he did not give any evidence regarding these confession statements. When the prosecution relies on the confession statements of the accused, the statements must be proved by the person who recorded the statements, and his evidence must be regarding the contents of the statements specifically amounting to confession. Merely marking a statement will not suffice to prove a statement of confession. 6. This Court has settled the legal position that for a prosecution under S.27 of the Kerala Forest Act as regards reserve forest, the prosecution will have to produce the Government Notification issued under S.19 of the Act. Ext.P3 is said to be the notification in this case. This is a true copy certified by the Chief Conservator of Forests. The copy also contains the seal of the Chief Conservator of Forests with his name and descriptions. But the said Chief Conservator of Forests was not examined to prove the notification. Another pertinent aspect is that the descriptions of the forest area stated in the Ext.P1 detection mahazar will not tally with the descriptions in the Ext.P3 notification. It is not properly proved by satisfactory evidence that the Ext.P3 notification relates to the spot of detection described in the Ext.P1 mahazar. If at all, it relates to the place of detection, the notification stands not properly proved by the person who certified it as true copy. The proper way to prove a notification is to examine the person who certified the copy as true copy, as the custodian of the notification. There is no such evidence in this case. When there is no proper notification, properly proved according to law, the accused cannot be found guilty. 7. As discussed above, I find two infirmities in this case. There is no such evidence in this case. When there is no proper notification, properly proved according to law, the accused cannot be found guilty. 7. As discussed above, I find two infirmities in this case. One is that there is no proper notification under S.19 of the Act, and the other is that the alleged confession statements are not properly and legally proved by the proper person, to make it admissible in evidence. In the above circumstances, the conviction against the revision petitioners cannot be sustained. In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed. The revision petitioners are found not guilty of the offence under Ss.27(1) (e) (iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and they are acquitted of the said offence in revision. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against them in C.C.451/1999 of the court below, and confirmed in appeal, will stand set aside, and the revision petitioners will stand released from prosecution