Deen Ab And Eu Rajaguru Complainant- v. Viswarasarayi Lachanna Dora And Others Accused Nos. 1 To 8-

1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate purports to follow the ruling in Proceedings, 22nd October 1868 (1). But the view expressed in that ruling has been departed from see the ruling in Rama krishna Chetti v. Palaniyandi Kudambar (2) which expressly overruled the case in Proceedings, 12th November 1874 (3) which followed the view in the Proceedings, 22nd October 1868 (), See also the rulings reported as High Court proceedings, 13th April 1881 (4) and In re Nulla Naraya-nasami (5). The case in Proceedings, 22nd October 1868 () can no longer be considered to be good law. It seems manifest that if a supply channel is filled up, or is obstructed by a dam put up, or by raising a dam already existing, there is a change made in the, channel which diminishes its value or utility and which, if it was done with intention to cause, or with knowledge that it was likely to cause, wrongful loss to any person would constitute the offence of mischief. If the act so done causes a diminution of supply of water as mentioned in section 430, Indian Penal Code, an offence under that section is committed.

2. In this case the charge framed is, however, not for mischief by raising the bund but by preventing the Tahsildar from cutting it down. That cannot constitute mschief, and I think it will not be right to set aside the acquittal and order a retrial in this case. The petition is dismissed.

3. Petition dismissed.