minal Appeal Nos 39 49 of 1962
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 26 1960 of the Court of Judicial Commissioner of Tripura at Agartala in Criminal Revision Nos 9 8 16 22 21 32 23 18 20 24 and 17 of 1960
C K Daphtary Attorney General D N Mukerjee and R H Dhebar for the appellant in all the appeals
P K Chatterjee for the respondents in Appeals Nos 39 42 23 46 48 and 49 of 1962
May 5 1964
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J
The respondents in these several appeals were prosecuted before Magistrates in Tripura for offences under section 261 of the and were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fine Their appeals to the learned Sessions Judge Tripura having been dismissed they preferred Criminal Revision Petition to the Judicial Commissioner Tripura
The learned Judicia 161 Commissioner allowed their revisions by a common judgment and directed their acquittal
From these orders of acquittal the Union of India has filed these appeals by virtue of special leave granted by this Court under article 136 of the Constitution
Before proceeding to narrate the facts which have led to these appeals it is necessary to mention that three of these II appeals Criminal Appeals 40 41 and 45 of 1962 have become infructuous
The notices issued to the respondents in Appeals 40 and 45 of 1962 of the filing of the appeals could not be served on them as it was reported that they had left for Pakistan
The appeals could not accordingly be prosecuted
In regard to Criminal Appeal 41 of 1962 it is reported that the accused died pending the hearing of the appeals and hence the appeal has abated
We are therefore concerned only with the other 8 appeals
The material clauses of section 261 of the for contravention of which the respondents in the several appeals were prosecuted read 26
1 Any person who a makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 5 or who in a reserved forest d trespasses or pastures cattle or permits cattle to trespass e f fells girdles lops taps or burns any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from or other wise damages the same g h clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both in addition to such corn 51 SC 11
162 sensation for damage done to the forest a  the convicting Court may direct to be paid
 The magistrate convicted some of the accused respondents of offences under cls
a and d others of offences under cls
d  h
It is common ground that in order to constitute an offence under section 261 the acts specified in the clauses of the sections should be committed in an area which is a reserved forest under the Act
We might point out that if the area concerned was a reserve forest the guilt of the respondents would practically be made out and their conviction by the Magistrates confirmed by the Sessions Judge Tripura might have to be upheld
The principal if not the sole question for consideration in the appeals however is whether the forest area where the respondents were held to have committed the acts alleged against them was such a reserve forest
Before however dealing with that question it would be convenient to set out very briefly the facts which have given rise to these prosecutions
The forests wherein the several respondents are stated to have committed the offences set out in the clauses of s261 of the Act quoted above are comprised in three distinct areas in the former Indian State of Tripura
These three areas are known respectively as the Garjichhera reserve Chandrapur reserve and the North Sonamura reserve
In April 1958 an officer of the Forest Department went on circuit duty in these forest areas and found that the several accused had cleared the forests reclaimed some land and had dug tanks for the purpose of cultivation and had made homesteads there
On the averment that these acts on the part of the several accused who are respondents in the several appeals constituted offences under section 261 a and h and in some cases under section 261 a d and h and in still some others under section 261d f and h the accused were produced in the courts of the Magistrates having jurisdiction
The accused admitted that they had made homesteads and were living in structures constructed at the places where they were found and the only defence then raised was that they were entitled 163 to do so under a claim of jote rights on the lands
No evi dence was however produced by any of the accused to substantiate their claim to trespass on and plough up and cultivate and erect homesteads on the lands on which they were found squatting and the learned Magistrates holding that while the prosecution had made out their case the accused had not established their defence found the accused guilty and passed appropriate sentences on them
Appeals were filed against these convictions by the several accused to the learned Sessions Judge of Tripura
At that stage the accused raised the contention that the forest areas comprised in the Garjichhara Chandrapur and North Sonapura reserves were not Reserve forests within the meaning of the Act
For establishing that these reserves were  reserved forests within the Indian Act the prosecution relied on two circumstances
First there was a Forest Act promulgated by the Ruler of the Tripura State Act 2 of 1257 TE 1297 TE which contained provisions some what analogous to those contained in the Indian Act
Next section 5 of the Tripura Act enabled the State Government to declare by notifications published in the State Gazette the boundaries of the forest areas to be governed by the State Act
There were three such notifications published in the Tripura State Gazette in 1346 and 1349 TE corresponding to 1936 and 1938 by which the boundaries of the three reserves of the Garjichhera Chandrapur and North Sonamura forests were defined
The contention urged by the proseution was that the Tripura Act was replaced by the by reason of legislative provisions to which we shall advert later and that the notifications under the Tripura Act which were continued in force by these same provisions rendered these three reserves Reserved forests under the 
We shall have to set out the terms of the Act as well as of the notifications later but it is sufficient to mention at this stage that the places where the respondents cleared the forests and built their homesteads were admittedly within one or other of these three reserves
The respondents in Appeals 39 43 47 and 49 had trespased into the Garjichhera reserve while those concerned in appeals 42 46 and 48 had trespassed into the Chandrapur reserve and the respondent in appeal 44 was found to have 164 committed a similar offence in respect of the forest described as the North Sonamura reserve
When these three notifications were produced before the learned Sessions Judge he held that by reason of these notifications the three forest areas became reserved forests under the relevant provisions of the and he therefore upheld the order of the Magistrate convicting the accused and dismissed the appeals of the several accused
Thereafter revisions were filed to the Judicial Commissioner Tripura
The same question of law viz whether having regard to the terms and provisions of the Tripura Forest Act the notifications setting out the boundaries of the three reserves constituted these reserves reserve forests within the  was again debated before the learned Judicial Commissioner the learned Judicial Commissioner differing from the Sessions Judge held that they were not and on this finding directed the acquittal of the several accused
It is the correctness of this conclusion of the learned Judicial Commissioner that is challenged in these appeals
It would be seen from the above narrative that the question for consideration is whether the areas where the offence are said to have been committed were within reserve forests within the meaning of the 
On the terminology employed by the reserve forests are those areas of forest land which are constituted as reserve forests under Ch
II of the Act Chapter II comprises sections 3 to 27 and is headed Of Reserveed Forests
Section 3 empowers the State Government to constitute any forest land or waste land which is the pro perty of Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights or to the whole or in part of the forest produce to which the Government is entitled a reserve forest in the manner hereinafter provided
Section 4 require that the State Government when it has decided to constitute any land as a reserved forest should notify by the issue of a notification in the Official Gazette specifying the situation limits etc
of that land and declare its decision constitute the land as a reserved forest
Section 6 make 165 provision for a proclamation of the notification issued under s4 by publication in several places so that persons who might be affected by the issue of the notification may prefer objections thereto
Section 7 directs an enquiry by a Forest Settlement Officer of all claims made by persons in response to the publication of the notification under section 6
Section 9 provides generally for the extinction of rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under section 6
Where claims are preferred and are found to be made out section I I provides for the acquisition of such rights or of lands in respect of which the rights are claimed in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act
The next succeeding provisions of the Act enable appeals to be filed against the orders and for their hearing by the appellate authorities
These are followed by section 20 under which after the stage of enquiry and decisions on claims made is completed the State Government is directed to issue a notification in the Official Gazette specifying definitely according to boundary marks erected or otherwise the limits of the forest which is to be reserved and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification
Sub section 2 of the section enacts 202 From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest Section 21 provides for the translation of the notification and its publication in every town or village in the neighbourhood of the forest
The next relevant provision is section 26 which prohibits the doing of certain acts in a reserved forest and provides for punishment for these contraventions the material parts of which we have already set out
From these provisions it would be seen that it is the notification under section 20 after complying with the procedure prescribed by the other sections of the Chapter commencing with section 4 that constitutes a forest area a reserved forest within the Act
The forests in the former State of Tripura were not dec clared reserved forests under a notification issued under section 20 of the after following the procedure prescribed by Ch
H We have therefore to examine the steps by which this result is said to have been reached
We have already referred to the existence of the Tripura Forest 1297 TE enacted by the Ruler of Tripura under which certain provisions were made for the preservation of Forest areas in the State and the notifications issued thereunder constituting the three areas as reserve forests for the purpose of that Act
It would be necessary to exa mine the details of these provisions but this we shall defer till we complete the narration of the constitutional changes which brought the State of Tripura into the Indian Union and the legislation which accompanied and accomplished these changes
Tripura was a native State and the ruler by a merger agreement with the Governor General of India merged his State with the Dominion in the year 1949
By para 5 of the Tripura Administration Order 1949 issued on October 15 1949 under the powers conferred in that behalf by the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act 1947 all the laws in force in the State of Tripura immediately before the commencement of the said Order were continued in force until they were repealed or amended by a competent legislature or authority
Then came the Constitution which was operative from January 26 1950 and under it Tripura became a Part C State of the Union of India
By virtue of Art 372 of the Constitution the laws in force in the territory of India which would have included the Tripura Forest Act in so far as it applied to the territory of the former Tripura State were continued in force until repealed or anended by competent legislation
Next came the Part C States Laws Act 1950 enacted by Parliament
By its section 3 the Acts and Ordinances specified in the Schedule to the Merged State Laws Act 1949 were extended to and directed to be in force in the State of Tripura as they were general in force in the territories to which they extended immediate before the commencement of that Act
One of the enactments specified in the Schedule to the Act LIX of 1949 was the 
The was thus extended to the Tripura State
Section 4 of the States Laws Act 1950 provided that any law which immediately before the commencement of the Act April 15 1950 was in form in any of the States which included Tripura and correspondent to an Act extended to that State by the Act was there repealed
The operation of the repeat was subject to the I67 provisos and it is the second of these provisos that calls for construction in these appeals
This proviso ran Provided further that subject to the preceding proviso anything done or any action taken including any appointment or delegation made notification order instruction or direction issued rule regulation form bye law or scheme framed certificate patent permit or licence granted or registration effected under such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under section 2 or as the case may be under the corresponding provision of the Act or Ordinance as now extended to the State by section 3 and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said section 2 or as the case may be under the said Act or Ordinance
 Shortly stated the question for consideration in these appeals is whether as a result of the operation of sections 3 and 4 of the Part C States Laws Act read in the light of the proviso above quoted the three reserved forests which were notified under the Tripura Act of 1257 TE could be de emed to be reserved forests under Ch
II of the 
Stopping here it would be convenient to notice a few mat ters
In the first place when the was extended to the State of Tripura in 1950 it would have been open to Government to have taken steps to constitute  reserved forests within the State by following the procedure prescribed by Ch
II to which we have already adverted
But this was not done and the Government seem to have proceeded on the basis that the areas notified as reserved forests under the Tripura Act were reserved forests under the 
Next it is common ground that the Tripura Act which was continued by the Tripura Administration Order 1949 did not survive 168 the Part C States Laws Act 1950 because the being a corresponding law to the Tripura Forest Act stood repealed by the operation of section 4 of that enactment
Besides the provisions of the Tripura Forest Act under which the notifications constituting these forests as reserved forests were issued were under the proviso to section 4 deemed to have been done under the corresponding provi sion of the Act as now extended to the State by section 3
The position however is that the whose ex tension to the Tripura area effected the repeal of the Tripura Act contains provisions of two distinct types or kinds for the exercise of control over forests and forest areas and the question then arises as to which of the provisions of the Indian Act correspond to those of the Tripura Act to enable one to say that the notifications under the latter Act should be deemed to have been issued
On a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Tripura Forest Act the learned Judicial Commissioner held that at the most the corresponding provision of the to which the Tripura notification could be related was as a protected forest under Ch
IV of the and not a  reserved forest under Ch
11 of the Act
He therefore decided that as the offence for which the accused were being prosecuted was one under section 26 the accused could not be held guilty since there was no legal or effective notification of the forest area as a reserved forest within section 20 of the and accordingly directed the acquittal of the accused
The appeals challenge the correctness of this last conclusion
The principal submission of the learned AttorneyGeneral who appeared for the Union of India in support of the appeals was directed to establish that the notification constituting the three forests as reserved forests under the repealed Tripura Forest Act 11 of 1257 1297 TE must be deemed to have been taken under Ch
11 of the which it was contended was the provision corresponding to the repealed Tripura Act
it is the validity of this submission that now calls for consideration
Before entering on a discussion of this question we might dispose of a minor consideration which might be urged in I69 order to show that the notification under the Tripura Act could not be deemed to be a notification under section 20 of the 
One of the submissions under this head and this was one of the points that appears to have appealed to the learned Judicial Commissioner was that Ch
II of the prescribes an elaborate procedure which is mandatory and is required to be complied with before any land could be constituted into a reserved forest under that Act
The Tripura Act admittedly does not make provision for any such procedure being followed before an area is notified as a reserved forest or is constituted into one
The argument based on this was that in the absence of identity between the procedural requirements of the two Acts a notification under the revealed Act could not be deemed to be one under a corresponding provision of the Act extended to the territory the emphasis being on the words corresponding provision
We are unable to accept the correctness of this submission
The scheme of the Part C States Laws Act is this
In the first place by reason of section 3 certain enactments are extended to these States
If there is no law in that State which was in force on the date of the extension of a parti cular enactment under section 3 which is in pari materia and covers the same field as the law that is extended section 4 does not come into play and consequently there is no question of the repeal of any pre existing law
If such were the case the law in force in the native State of Tripura would have first continued by reason of the provision contained in section 5 of the Administration of Tripura Laws Order 1949 already referred to which was promulgated on October 15 1949 and later by reason of article 372 of the Constitution
To the extent to which there was no repeal by virtue of section 4 of the Part C States Laws Act 1950 the Tripura law would have continued in force
It is only on the basis that the whose operation was extended to that territory by section 3 was a corresponding law that the Tripura Act can stand repealed
For the purpose of effecting the repeal under section 4 the only consideration is whether any existing law of that State corresponded to a law which was extended by reason of section 3 170 As stand earlier it is common ground that the Tripura Forest Act corresponded to the and that the former therefore stood repealed on the extension to Tripura of the latter enactment
If then the extension of the to the State effected a repeal of the Tripura Forest Act we have next to consider whether the notification under the Tripura Act could be deemed to be a notification under the corresponding provision of the 
For that purpose the preliminaries to the notification or the procedure which must precede a notification are not of any relevance but only whether the particular notification could be held to be under a corresponding provision under the extended enactment viz the 
If the notifications had been issued after complying with the formalities prescribed by the State law and they are kept alive by the proviso to section 4 the notifications would necessarily have to be deemed to have validly been made under the latter Act
Judged by this test it appears to us that the fact that under the Tripura law there were no preliminaries prescribed before a forest could be notified as a reserved forest does not detract from such a notification being a notification under the 
We have next to consider whether the notification under the Tripura Act could be deemed to be a notification under Ch
11 or under section 20 of the for that is the basis upon which the entire prosecution case rests
For this purpose it is necessary to analyse the provisions of the Tripura Act and also examine the corresponding provisions of the 
We shall first
take up the Tripura Act
Its preamble after reciting that some classes of trees are regarded as protected ones from times immemorial goes on to state that it was expedient to consolidate the law with a view to bring order in the matter of the supervision of the protected trees and also to place the same on a sound footing
This would appear to indicate that the Act was designed for the protection of particular trees as distinguished from the reservation of an area as a forest for the purpose of protecting all the trees within that forest
We shall in due course have to refer to the provisions of Ch
TV of the Indian 17I Forest Act headed Of Protected Forests under which also the aim of the law is to afford protection to certain trees in particular areas
To revert to the Tripura Act its section 3 provides for the repeal of the earlier laws and saves only rules or customs not inconsistent with the Act
Section 4 is one of the key provisions of the Act and under it are specified seven classes of trees which shall be deemed to be protected within the independent State of Tripura
The Act is divided into seven chapters of which the first one is headed Of protection of Rakshita Bana which as stated earlier has been translated as Protected Forests
Section 5 under which the three notifications to which we have already referred were issued reads The boundaries of Rakshita Bana  shall be fixed and publication of the same shall be made in all police stations offices markets ports and other public places within this independent State
Section 6 runs No person shall be entitled to carry out any Jhum  cultivation shifting cultivation within half a mile radius of a Rakshita Bana
Sections 9 to 11 specify the acts which are prohibited in the notified forest areas
These enact 9
No person shall set fire to the hills in such a manner which may cause damage to a Rakshita Bana in any way
No person shall enter into a Rakshita Bana car rying fire
 I ll
No person shall enter into a Rakshita Bana carrying axe or other weapons which may be used for cutting trees without permission Chapter 11 with which section 12 opens is headed Of Gradual Development of Rakshita Banas
 The relevant sections of this Chapter are sections 12 to 17 and they read 12
In each year protected trees like sal etc
and other valuable trees shall be grown either by sowing seeds or otherwise
172 13
In order to give effect to the provisions of section 12 suitable sites will be selected at regular intervals after taking sanction for the same 14
If there are other trees in a Rakshita Bana than those mentioned in section 4 and if it is considered expedient that such other trees are harmful to the growth of the protected trees then such trees shall be cut 15
In case any old tree referred to in section 4 is cut then a new tree shall be grown in its place  16
No person on any account shall be allowed to cut any tree within the reserved forest in a manner which might cause any damage to the block
 17
If there be dense growth of any specific type of tree as mentioned in section 4 and if such growth is mutually detrimental to the general growth of the trees then to facilitate growth of the species some may be cut according to neces sity
 Chapter III is headed Of Penalties and of the sections comprised in it is sufficient to refer to section 18 under which any person kindling fire in a forest is made punishable with imprisonment section 19 on which much stress was laid which ran Whoever fells any tree within the limits of a Rakshita Bana shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs 5001or with both and section 20 which ran 20
Any person who cuts any tree as specified under section 4 outside the limits of a reserved forest shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two months or with fine which may extend to Rs 200 or with both
 173 In this connection it is necessary to point out that under s20 the cutting of the protected trees specified in section 4 is made an offence even if the cutting were to take place beyond the limits of the forest notified under section 5
The only point of difference brought in by the cutting being within the boundaries of the forest is that in that case the punishment is heavier
The other chapters relate to the officials and the manner in which they should perform their duties and have not much relevance for the purposes of these appeals
From the above summary of the provisions it would be seen that in substance the object and purpose of the Tripura Act was the protection of particular trees the seven types of trees specified in s4
The notification under section 5 is for the purpose of constituting areas where these types of trees would be protected
The penal provisions enacted are for ensuring the protection of these trees
No doubt section 16 enacts a ban against the cutting of any tree within a forest so as to cause damage to any block and section 19 penalises the cutting of any tree within the area of a forest but it is obvious that in the context of the other provisions of the Act and the purpose which the enactment is intended to subserve these prohibitions under penal sanctions were designed primarily and essentially to ensure more effective protection to the trees specified in s4
Now let us see whether Ch
II of the could be said to be a provision which corresponds to the Tripura Act so that the notification under section 5 of the latter enactment could be deemed to be a notification under Ch
II or section 20 of the Forest Act
We have set out the several provisions of Ch
II and their object
The prime purpose of that Chapter is the constitution of reserved forests in which 1 all private rights within the reserved area are completely eliminated by their being bought up where these are ascertained to exist by payment of compen sation 2 the entire area being devoted to siviculture every tree in the forest being protected from injury and within the scope of the penal provision contained in section 26
In other words the reservation here is to the forest area as such and not the protection of particular specified trees or species of trees in such a forest
174 In this connection some point was sought to be made from the terms of the notification under section 5 of the Tripura Act by which the boundaries of the several forests were specified
The three notifications were substantially in the same form and it is therefore sufficient to set out the one setting out the boundaries of the Garjichhera reserve
The relevant conditions are 2
Jhum cultivation will not be permissible in this forest area
The land previously settled within this forest a ea shall remain valid
Plough cultivation will be permissible in that area
The fallow Taluka land falling within this area shall be deemed as not being within this reserve
Until further orders cutting of all kinds of trees are prohibited within this Reserve
Cutting and export of unclassified forest products  will be permissible
Except in the settled area grazing of all kinds of animals elsewhere within this Reserve will be prohibited
AR kind of hunting within this Reserve is prohi bited
 In regard to these conditions stress was laid principally on condition No 5 under which all cutting of trees was forbid den
The provision here appears to be a reproduction of section 16 of the Act and to have no further or more extended operation
We are therefore unable to accept the submission that by reason of this clause the area which is notified as the reserved forest is constituted a reserved forest of the same type as under Ch
II of the 
In the first place as the notification was issued under the Tripura Act it would be reasonable to construe it with reference to the prohibition against cutting of trees contained in the Act itself and we have already adverted to the terms of section 16 which we have held was designed for the purpose of protecting the trees set out in section 4
But that apart clause 5 175 itself permits the cutting of certain forest produce which it was evidently thought would not interfere with the functioning of the forest as a place for the protection of the protected trees
The other two notifications do not permit the cutting of Bamboo etc
without Government permit but this in our opinion makes no difference
If one now turns to the provisions of Ch
IV of the the correspondence between the Tripura Act and the provisions of Ch
IV would become clear
Section 30 corresponding to section 4 of the Tripura Act in Ch
11 enables the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette a to declare any trees or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification b declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term not exceeding thirty years as the State Government thinks fit and that the rights of private persons if any over such portion shall be suspended during such term provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient and in a locality reasonably convenient for the due exercise of the rights suspended in the portion so closed or c prohibit from a date fixed as aforesaid the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime or charcoal or the collection or subjectionto any manufacturing process or removalof any forest produce in any such forest andthe breaking up or clearing for cultivationfor building for herding cattle or for any other purpose of any land in any such forest
 Section 31 provides for the publication of a notification under section 30 and section 32 for the regulations which may be made for protected forests ie areas in which particular trees are protected and section 33 provides for penalties for acts in contravention of a notification under section 30 or of rules under section 32
This section enacts 176 33
1 Any person who commits any of the following offences namely a fells girdles lops taps or bums any tree reserved under section 30 or strips off the bark or leaves from or otherwise damages any such tree b contrary to any prohibition under section 30 quarries any stone or burns any lime or charcoal or collects subjects to any manufacturing process or removes any forestproduce contrary to any prohibition under section 30 breaks up or clears for cultivation or any other purpose any land in any protected forest d sets fire to such forest
kindles a fire without taking all reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading to any tree reserved under section 30 whether standing fallen or felled or to any closed portion of such forest e leaves burning any fire kindled by him in the vicinity of any such tree or closed portion f fells any tree or drags any timber so as to damage any tree reserved as aforesaid g permits cattle to damage any such tree h infringes any rule made under section 32 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both
It would thus be clear that the object of Ch
TV is the protection of particular trees and the setting apart of particular areas as protected forests for the purpose of ensuring the growth and maintenance of such trees
The object I77 sought to be achieved by the reservation in Ch
IV of the is thus seen to be exactly similar to that which is sought to be achieved by the Tripura Act
Only the Tripura Act makes the cutting of protected trees even outside a forest an offence whereas there is no such provision under the 
If therefore one has to seek a provision corresponding to the repealed Tripura Forest Act that provision will be found not in Ch
11 of the but only in Ch
As the present prosecutions have been launched for offences under section 26 the learned Judicial Commissioner was right in holding that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused had committed an offence in respect of the provision under which they were charged since the three forests were not notified as reserved forests under a provision corresponding to Ch
II of the 
We therefore hold that the learned Judicial Commissioner was right in considering that the provision in the corresponding to the Tripura Forest Act under which the notifications fixing the boundaries of these three forests were issued is that as regards a protected forest under Ch
IV and not a reserved forest within section 20 contained in Ch
The order acquitting the several respondents was therefore right and the appeals fail
In the view that we have taken of the main question argued before us we do not find it necessary to consider whether there were any other legal defences open to the several accused
For instance it will be noticed that the accused in these cases were held guilty of offences under section 261a d and h
As regards the offence under cl
a the learned Attorney General conceded that it was a prerequisite for a person being held guilty of an offence under that clause that there should be a notification under section 4 because section 5 which is referred to in section 261 a reads 5
After the issue of a notification under section 4 no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom 51 SC 12 178 such right was vested when the notification was issued and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf
 In the absence therefore of such a notification the accused could not have been held guilty of a contravention of section 261a
Coming next to cls
d and h the question for consideration would be whether if these were not offences under the Tripura law the accused could be prosecuted by reason of a the extension of the Forest Act to the Tripura State and b the notification
under the Tripura law being deemed to be a notification under the corresponding provision of the Indian Act
We consider it unnecessary to examine this problem or to express any opi nion on this matter in view of the conclusion that we have reached that the notification under section 5 of the Tripura Act would constitute the area in question only as a protected forest under Ch
IV of the and not as a  reserved forest under section 20 contained in Ch El of that Act
The appeals fail and are dismissed
The appellant had undertaken to pay the costs of the respondents at the time of the admission of the appeals
In accordance with that undertaking the appellant will pay the costs to the respon dents
One hearing fee
Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondents in these appeals were convicted by Magistrates for offences under section 261 of the Indian Forest Act
Appeals were filed to the Sessions Judge where the respondents raised the contention that the forest areas in which the alleged offences were committed were not Reserve forests within the meaning of the Act
For establishing that these reserves were reserved forests within the Indian Act the appellant relied on two circumstances
First there was a Forest Act promulgated by the Ruler of Tripura State Act 2 of 1257 TE 1297 TE  which contained provisions somewhat analogous to those contained in the Indian Act
Next section 5 of the Tripura Act enabled the State Government to declare by notifications published in the State Gazette the boundaries of the forest areas to be governed by the State Act
Such notifications were published by which the boundaries of the reserves of the forests in question were defined
The appellant urged that the Tripura Act was replaced by the Indian Forest Act by reason of legislative provisions upon the merger of the native State of Tripura with the Dominion of India and that the notifications under the Tripura Act which were continued in force by these same provisions rendered these reserves Reserved forests under the Indian Forest Act
The Sessions Judge held that by reason of these notifications the forest areas became reserved forests under the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act and dismissed the appeals
Thereafter revisions were filed before the Judicial Commissioner who differing from the Sessions Judge held that they were not reserved forests and directed the acquittal of the respondents
On appeal by special leave HELD i From the provisions of the Indian Forest Act it would be seen that it is the notification under section 20 after complying with the procedure prescribed by the other sections of Chapter 11 commencing with section 4 that constitutes a forest area a reserved forest within the Act
iiThe fact that under the Tripura Act there were no preliminaries Prescribed before a forest could be notified as a reserved forest does not detract from such a notification being a notification under the Indian Forest Act
iii In substance the object and purpose of the Tripura Act was the protection of particular trees the seven types of trees specified in section 4
The notification under section 5 is for the purpose of constituting areas where These types would be protected
The penal provisions enacted are for insuring the protection of these trees
iv The prime purpose of Chapter II of the Indian Forest Act is the constitution of reserved forests in which 1 all private rights within the reserved area are completely eliminated by their being bought up where these are ascertained to exist by payment of compensation 2 the entire area being devoted to siviculture every tree in the forest being protected 160 from injury and within the scope of the penal provision contained in section 26
In other words the reservation here is to the forest area as such and not the protection of the particular specified trees or species of trees in such a forest
The object of Ch
IV of the Indian Forest Act is the protection of particular trees and the setting apart of particular areas as protected forests for the purpose of ensuring the growth and maintenance of such trees
The object sought to be achieved by the reservation in Ch
IV is exactly similar to that which is sought to be achieved by the Tripura Act
Only the Tripura Act makes the cutting of protected trees even outside a forest an offence whereas there is no such provision under the Indian Forest Act
viThe notification under section 5 of the Tripura Act would constitute the area in question only as a protected forest under Ch
IV of the Indian Forest Act and not as a reserved forest under section 20 contained in Ch
11 of the Act vii The
Judicial Commissioner was right in considering that the Provisionin the Indian Forest Act corresponding to the Tripura Forest Act underwhich the notifications fixing the boundaries of these forests in question were issued was that as regards a protected forest under Ch
IV and not reserved forest within section 20 contained in Ch