1. Per Curiam:— In Queen v. Vitti Chokkan (1) it was held that the “public spring” contemplated in s. 277, Indian Penal Code, did not include a continuous stream of water running along the bed of a river. That decision was followed by the Madras High Court in Empress v. Anthony (2), where it was held that the section did not apply to a public river or to the water flowing in a continuous stream in a river bed. Our Court has put the same construction on the section: Reg v. Patha (3): Imper-atrix v. Hari Bapu (4); Imperatrix v. Nilappa Durgappa (5). The Calcutta High Court has adopted it: Empress v. Halodhar Poroo (6). But though the fouling of the water of a river running in a continuous stream may not be an offenc unders. 277, Indian Penal Code, it may well be a nuisance under s. 200, Indian Penal Code, if the evidence shows that the act was such as to cause common injury or danger to the public.
2. In the present case the Magistrate finds that, the act of the accused was such as to make the water unfit for drinking purposes. Following the order of this Court in Imperatrix v. Vithoba walad Keshav (7), we direct that the record and proceedings be returned, and the District Magistrate be informed that though the act of the accused might not be an offence under section 277, yet from the description given it might well be a nuisance under s. 290 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court is not, therefore, called on to interfere.