DINA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dina, Tehlu, Jaisari, Kattal, Paras, Puranmasi, Punai, Ram Shankar, Bhola, Lallan, Lalta and Bachan have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences of fine of Rs. 30/ - in default to two weeks' RI each Under Sec. 70 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in so far as they are relevant for its decision, lie within a narrow compass. The Appellants were prosecuted Under Sec. 430 Code of Criminal Procedure for causing diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes by the cutting of the Bandh of a canal. The learned trial Judge held that the offence made out against the Appellants did not fall Under Sec. 430 IPC but fell Under Sec. 70 of the Act, and relying upon Ss. 236 and 237, Code of Criminal Procedure and the decisions in Rajuddin v/s. Emperor (1) (5 ALJ p. 159) and Mewa Ram v/s. Emperor (2 (1934 (3) AWR 585) he convicted and sentenced them, Under Sec. 7(sic) of the Act, as stated above.

(3.) On behalf of the Appellant: the short point urged before m in support of this appeal was, that as Sec. 70 of the Act provide a special forum for the trial (sic) offences under that Sec. the order of the learned trial Judge convicting and sentencing the Appellants there under was without jurisdiction and hence was liable to be set aside After hearing learned Counsel I am satisfied that this contention has force.