Nazir Malita and two others vs Hari Charan Parui

No body appears to show cause against this rule, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has submitted an explanation, which we have considered. On turning to the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, we do not find any expression of opinion therein upon the question whether in what the accused did it was in the exercise of a bona fide claim of right, though no doubt in the explanation he has submitted, he has referred to this question and he says by way of supplement to his judgment that the accused could not have a bond fide claim of right. But referring to the evidence in the case it seems to us that there was a bond fide claim of right on the part of the accused. He (the accused) took a lease from a certain person, and upon the basis of that lease he claimed to exercise the right of fishing in the water in question.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate seems to think that before the accused took the lease he ought to have satisfied himself thoroughly that his lessor had a good title to the property, that is hardly a matter that properly comes into consideration under the Fisheries. Act, II of 1889. We think that the conviction and sentence cannot be supported, and we accordingly set them aside, and make the rule absolute. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.