JUDGMENT Agarwala, C.J.
1. The petitioners have been convicted of offences under Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 26 (1), Forest Act, 1927. The prosecution case is that they cultivated land which falls within a reserved forest and have cut down trees standing on that land. The defence was that the land which has been cleared does not fell within the reserved forest, and that it has been the raiyati land of the petitioners for many years. The prosecution produced and relied on a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, and also led evidence that the land in question falls within the boundary pillars fixed lay the forest department, for proving that the land in question falls within the reserved forest. Now, the notification under Section 4 of the Act is merely a notification declaring the intention of Government to constitute certain land as a reserved forest and specifying as nearly as possible the situation and limits of such land. The following sections of the Act provide for the determination of rights in the land which it is sought to constitute as a reserved forest and similar matters. Then comes Section 20 which is the section under which the forest is eventually constituted. That section provides that when certain events have occurred, which need not be specified here, the Provincial Government, "shall publish 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 declare the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification."
Sub-section (2) of this section says that "from the date so fixed shall be deemed to be a reserved forest."
The prosecution has not produced the notification, if any, issued under Section 20, specifying definitely the limits of the forest. It is clear from a perusal of the section that a notification under this section is essential for the purpose of declaring a forest a reserved forest, and that such notification must specify precisely the limits of the forest and the date from which the forest is constituted. The prosecution has, by oral evidence, endeavoured to prove that the land in question falls within certain boundary pillars. Presumably it was intended to amply that these were the boundary marks referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 20. It may be that they are so; but for the purpose of proving the guilt of the petitioners it is necessary to shew not only that they did the acts mentioned in Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 26 (1), but also that they were not entitled to do those acts because there had been a notification issued under Section 20 (1) specifying the limits of the forest and that the land in question fell within those limits.
2. This is merely one of the many instances to which this Court has continually invited Government's attention to the utter carelessness with which prosecutions in this province are conducted. 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.
3. The convictions and sentences are set aside. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.
4. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Provincial Government.