Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The reasons given by the Sub-Magistrate for acquitting the accused are clearly erroneous [see Suri Venkatappaya Sastri v. Madula Venkanna 27 M. 531 ; 1 Cri. L.J. 42, overruling Queen-Empress v. Kotayya 10 M. 255
2. But where the charge is for theft of clods of earth worth 6 pies from a public channel bed belonging to Government, dishonest intention need not be assumed unless it is shown that the accused knew that the publics officers in charge of the bed had notified that the removal of earth would injure the pecuniary or other interests of Government or unless from the clandestine nature of the act, such knowledge could be inferred. The act in this case was committed in daylight (at 4 P.M.) and the evidence does not disclose any dishonest intention. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal filed by the Government and confirm the order of acquittal, though not on the grounds set forth in the Sub-Magistrate's judgment.