SITAL PRASAD GHOSH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of a conviction under Section 46 of the Water Works Act. The facts on which the conviction is based are as follows:

(2.) The applicant, Mr. Sital Prasad Ghosh, has a house and a garden. In the garden there is a well, attached to it there is a pucoa reservoir and a pucca channel. Part of the garden is used for the purposes of growing vegetables. The Chairman and Assistant Secretary of the Municipal Board visited the premises on the 5th December 1914. They saw that the vegetable garden was well watered and found the reservoir dry and the channel containing a large amount of leaves. They saw a pair of bullocks entering the compound. Half an hour before this the Chairman and Assistant Secretary had been visiting the other houses in the neighbourhood.

(3.) The Court below has drawn, on these facts, the inference that the water which was supplied for domestic purposes had been used for the purpose of watering the garden. The Assistant Secretary stated that in his opinion the reservoir and the channel could not have been used for a fortnight because they were dry and there was a large amount of leaves in the channel. I take it for granted that waste water may be used for the purpose of the garden as it could not be used for a second time for domestic purposes. In my opinion these facts do not legitimately raise the inference that Mr. Sital Prasad Ghosh had used the Municipal water. It was cold weather when the premises of the applicant were visited and land watered then continues to be wet for a considerable length of time and the bare fact of the garden being wet at the time is not in itself a sufficent fact even with the presence of leaves in the water channel for the conviction of the applicant of the offence of which he has been convicted. I am, therefore, of opinion that the facts found are insufficient to support the applicant s conviction. I set aside the order of the Court below. The fine will be refunded.