(1.) The District Magistrate has overlooked the rulings of this Court, dated 23 October 1878, No. 1759, reported at page 232, Weir's Law of Offences, 3 edition, and in the note to Queen V/s. Reva Pothadu I.L.R. 5 Mad. 390.
(2.) It was there held that fish in an ordinary open irrigation tank are not in possession of any person, so as to be capable of being
(3.) the subject of theft. The question whether the removal of such fish constitutes any other offence is fully discussed in Bhagiram Dome V/s. Abar Dome I.L.R. 15 Calc. 388 and is answered in the negative, These rulings are evidently referred to by the Sub-Magistrate, though he has failed to note them with exactness.