1. This is an application to revise an order passed under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to a water course running into a urani in the village of Puduvayal in Ramnad District. The Magistrate in the first instance had held that this urani into which this water course ran was a private one and therefore he could not take action under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code. On the parties coming up in revision to this Court, this Court revised that finding and held that the urani was a public tank and directed fresh order to be passed. The Magistrate has now taken evidence and under Section 133 has directed the petitioners before me to restore the embankment of the catchment area to its original condition about a foot high and to close the newly opened channel from the north to the south, marked-A in Ex. A, and to remove all obstructions caused by them to the free flow of the water into the urani within 15 days from the date of the order. Dr. Swaminadhan appearing for them has contended that this order was an incompetent order and that Section 133 does not apply to the facts of this case. His contention is based on the allegation that there is no river or channel in the present case which has been obstructed and he contends that under the second paragraph of Section 133 it is only an unlawful obstruction to a way, river or channel which may be lawfully used by the public or an obstruction in a public place that can be ordered to be removed. He contends that the present order of the Magistrate directing the restoration of the embankment of catchment area is quite beyond the scope of Section 133. I am unable to accept his arguments. It is clear from the complaint that has been filed in the case that there is a water course taking water to the urani in question and the allegation of the respondents before me was that this water course had been obstructed partly by building up a bund in it, partly by cutting open another channel to take away the water from it and partly by cutting away the embankment at a point B round that catchment area. The word 'channel' no doubt is not defined in the Code but I think the word is quite wide enough to include the state of affairs in this case. We have a catchment area in the centre of which there is a water course which is obstructed and the water which flows into the water course is attempted to be carried away by the petitioners before me to their own village tank, and the way they do it is by building a bund and cutting a new channel and by cutting down a new portion of the old bund of the catchment area, make the water run away in a direction different to that of the water course and to prevent it falling into the urani. That, I think, can be held to be an obstruction to the water course. The point was not properly taken in the lower Court and hence we do not find any discussion of it, in the judgment of the Magistrate, for he begins by saying 'The only question that remains to be considered is whether the counter petitioners interfered with the embanhment of the catchment area and put up a new channel as alleged in the petition.' If the point had been properly put forward clear evidence would have been available to show what exactly the position of the catchment area is and how the cutting open the bund of that catchment area affects the water course or the channel in the centre of the catchment area. I am therefore inclined to think that this is an order which the Magistrate could have competently passed under Section 133 and on the merits the petitioners have no case whatever. My attention was called to the case in Jagarnath Sahu v. Parameswar Narain (1914) 36 All 209 where the learned Judge held that a field which was on a lower level than the adjoining fields and over which the surplus water of these fields used to flow into a tank, even if it could be described as a channel, was cot such a channel as had been or could be lawfully used by the public and action could not be taken under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the removal of any obstruction from it. This ruling is based on the fact that the fields over which the water used to flow was cot a public field and hence Section 133 could not be applied to it. Their Lordships are apparently prepared to concede that this field over which water flowed could be described in a wide sense as a channel. That case is not therefore in the petitioners' favour. Here, the finding being that the want is a public urani, the water course carrying the water to it must be held to be a public water course and any interference with that water course will fall under Section 133. The only point taken before me failing, the petition must be dismissed.