KANNIAH CHETTIAR Vs. KUPUSWAMI CHETTIAR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH I would be most reluctant to interfere with an acquittal, and the authorities are explicit to the effect that interference with an acquittal would be justified only, for substantial and compelling reasons evident from the record, the present case appears to be one in which interference is essential in the interests of justice, for, the acquittal of the respondent by the learned District Magistrate of Kumbakonam in appeal with regard to an alleged offence under Section 430 I. P. C. is contrary to what the learned District Magistrate has himself indicated earlier in the judgment as confirming the findings of the learned Sub -Magistrate, Kumbakonam. Upon those findings, assuming that they are decisively established, as I have to assume with regard to concurrent findings upon a simple question of fact by the two Courts below, it is clear that the learned District Magistrate has erred in applying the relevant principles of law.

(2.) BOTH these elements appear to have been established on the explicit facts on record. The learned Sub -Magistrate observed

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, it seems to be evident and undeniable that the complainant has a legal right to take water in the channel, for, that is the effect of the testimony that has been accepted by both the Courts. Hence, the learned District Magistrate was in error in observing that the evidence did not disclose that the complainant had the legal right to use the water in the channel blocked by the respondent. A legal right of this character is a question of fact, which has to be proved like any other fact by the requisite evidence, Since both the Courts do not dispute either the evidence or its effect, the legal right must be held as established in this case. The decision cited by the learned District Magistrate Tung Aung v. Emperor, 7 Cr LJ 448 (LB) has no application, because that was a case where the legal right was not proved.