1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate purports to follow the ruling in 4 H.C.R.P. 15 (Appeal). But the view expressed in that ruling has been departed from; see the ruling in Ramakrishna Chetti v. Palaniyandi Kadambar F.B.  1 Mad. 262, which expressly over-ruled the case in 7 M.H.C.R. 9 (appeal) which followed the view in the 4 M.H.C.R. Case. See also the rulings reported in Weir Vol, 1 P. 503 and 504. The case in 4 M.H.C.R. can no longer be considered to be good law. It seems manifest that if a supply channel is filled up or is obstructed by a dam put up or by raising a dam already existing, there is a change made in the Channel which diminishes its value or utility and which if it was done with intention to cause or with knowledge that it was likely to cause wrongful loss to any person would constitute the offence of mischief. If the act so done causes a diminution of supply of water as mentioned in Section 430 I.P.C. an offence under that Section is committed.
2. In this case the charge framed is however not for mischief by raising the bund but by preventing the Tahsildar from cutting it down. That cannot constitute mischief and I think it will not be right to set aside the acquittal and order a retrial in this case. The petition is dismissed.