AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 156 wordsAnantakrishna Aiyar, J.—Two points have been argued in this case (1) that it is not shown that the place where the accused fished was
within the Government village and (2) that fish could not be subject of theft.
On the first point there is the definite finding that the place of fishing is within the limits of Manikyahur (Government) village. The evidence given
by the prosecution witnesses supports that finding which is one of fact. (2) As regards the 2nd point there is the finding that the fish were in ponds
and that it is by baling the water out from the ponds that fish are caught in this case. They are confined in the ponds and could not escape from the
same and go elsewhere. Such fish could be the subject of theft [Per Miller, J., in Manchu Paidigadu v. Kadimsetti Tammayya 22 IND.CAS. 429 :
1914 M.W.N. 168].
The petition is dismissed.