1. This is a dispute between neighbouring villagers. There is a supply channel (A2 and A5) flowing from the Terbogi 'Kanmoi' to the Konjani 'Kanmoi'. The ryots or the Sathamangalam Kanmoi' and the accused in this case are charged with damming A2--A5 at place B in the plan and clearing or making a channel B-B1 and thereby diverting the water flowing in (A2-A5) and so guilty under Section 430 Indian Penal Code.
2. Dr. Swaminathan, for the accused (appellants) urges that the channel, A2--A5 is not a supply channel, secondly, that this is a matter for the Civil Courts, and, thirdly, that the elements for the offence of; mischief are not present here.
3. There is no doubt that A2--A5 is a supply channel, that is found by both Courts and is also established by Exhibit A whereby the Konjani villagers were to enjoy the water flowing along A2-A5. The Exhibit is dated 9th March 1914 and in it the channel is called Kulaikal (supply channe). There is no substance in the suggestion that this a spurious document, it, therefore, seems to me that the petition on the point of claim of right in the petitioners fails.
4. As to the point that this is a civil dispute, the point is not taken in the ground of revision to this Court and it should hava been urgad below. The case has bsen carried to two Criminal Courts, and the acts in done by the accused do, in my opinion, amount to an offence under tha Indian Pdnal Code. I am, therefore, unable to say at this stage that the case is one for the Civil Court alone.
5. As to the legal point, I think the accused here must be taken to have intended wrongful loss, they not only dammed up the channel A2--A5 but opened a diverting channel. In Ramakrishna Chetti v. Palaniyandi Kudambar 1 M. 262(F.B.), a case of this sort, it was held that the intention is properly held to be such, i.e., wrongful when the accused takes it (the water) without any sort of right.
6. This is further supported by the case reported as Queen-Empress v. Jagannath Bhikaji Bhave 10 B. 183 .
7. I am, therefore, unable to find any ground for interference in the present case, and the criminal revision case must be dismissed.