(1.) In this case the two petitioners have been convicted under Section 430, I.P.C. for the particular form of mischief which consists in interfering with the water supply of a particular abad called Maheshwaripur Abad. It appears that the petitioner Ashutosh Ghoae is the manager and the petitioner Nripendranath Prodhinia is the naib of the landlords of this abad. It would appear to be a very large place which some few years ago was a jungle and which has been made cultivable to some extent by (sic) bunds to protect it from rivers which surround it on three sides. It is divided into three chaks and we are concerned with chak No. 3, it being the northernmost chak. In the abad there are a large number of small and also some large khals and the opening of the large khals is controlled or closed by sluice gates. The actual condition of the abad is not very clear at least to me upon the evidence and I cannot gather how many of the large khals are within the particular chak No. 3 with which we are concerned, but a number of small khals certainly are.
(2.) In the ordinary way during the rains these khals get filled with rainwater which is not saline or not so saline as the river water. No question seems to arise in this case of the letting in of river water upon these lands, but the complaint is this that after the rains and at a time when there are no crops or agricultural operations going on the maliks were mined to make some revenue out of the fishery right in these different khals. As regards the larger khals, they are fished by nets. As regards the smaller khals, for the first time, as the prosecution alleged, the maliks made up their minds to fish in a. special manner, that is to say, by cutting the bunds of the small khals so as to let out a considerable amount of water and then placing what is called khait or obstruction of some kind at intervals along the small khals and. bailing the water out into the next higher part. For purposes of fishing in this manner, the maliks for the first time emptied out all the small khals with the result that the tenants of chak No. 3 suffered from a scarcity of fresh water.
(3.) On the findings of the Courts below it would appear that the tenants and the landlords have of late been at daggers drawn, the landlords in some cases, having taken kabuliyats at a higher rent and the tenants refusing thereafter to pay. It would also appear from the findings that the method of fishing adopted was adopted for the first time on this occasion and the inferences of the Courts below are to the effect that the landlords being minded to pay back the refractory tenants adopted this particular method of fishing with a view to harass them with the intention that they should not have sufficient water either for their own domestic purposes or for their cattle or for agriculture.