:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 1995 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 1995 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant. (Org.Complainant) v. Mangal Ramchandra More age 30 years, Occ:Nil, R/o. Murbad, Dist. Thane ...Respondent. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for the Appellant/State. None for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 13th February, 2009. DATE: 13th February, 2009. DATE: 13th February, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.1995 passed by the J.M.F.C., Murbad in S.C.C.No.216 of 1992 whereby accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 30(c) read with 33(1)(c), 26(1)(f) read with 42(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 6.6.1992 the Range Forest Officer, Murbad, the Range Forest Officer Flying Sqad, Murbad, the forest employees working in the forest range, Murbad and the complainant visited and inspected the protected forest land survey no.271. They found that the accused cleared and dug the land in this survey number and occupied the area admeasuring about 35 sq.mtrs. They found that the :2: accused constructed house-cum-hut in that clean area by using 17 pieces of forest wood. It is the prosecution case that the construction was without taking prior permission of the forest department, and by trespassing on the protected forest land. The above officers accordingly prepared spot panchanama and thereafter filed complaint against the accused in the Court on 1st August, 1992. 3. The particulars of the offence were explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the accused was that of denial . 4. In order to prove guilt of the respondent/accused, prosecution examined two witnesses namely, P.W.1 Shivaji Shankar, the complainant and P.W.2 Nathuram Bhau, pancha witness to the spot panchanama. 5. The learned Magistrate found the evidence of the complainant, P.W.1 and the pancha witness, P.W.2 trust worthy as both of them corroborated each other. The learned Magistrate, however, was pleased to acquit the respodent/accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the land survey no.271 is a protected land. Prosecution in order to prove that the :3: land survey no.271 is a protected forest land relied upon xerox copy of the Gazette dated 3.8.1905. The learned Judge in view of the provisions of Section 65 and 78 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the xerox copies are not admissible in the evidence and, therefore, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the land survey no.271 is a protected forest land. 6. Under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, it is obligatory for the Government to issue Notification in official Gazette declaring any land as a protected forest land. Under Section 31, publication of translation of the Notification issued under Section 30 is required to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the Notification. It is not the case of the prosecution that the publication of translation of the Notification issued under Section 30 was affixed in conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the Notification. 7. In view of above, prosecution can not be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent/accused cleaned and dug protected forest land. :4: 8. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)