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
1 paragraphs · 105 wordsMarkby, J.—I think we must hold that this is not a case u/s 277 of the Indian Penal Code. The water which is said to have been fouled was certainly not the water of a reservoir, nor, in my opinion, was it the water of a "public spring." The judgment of the Magistrate shows that it was the water of the river Nobogunga. I do not think by the use of the words "the water of any public spring" the Legislature intended to include the water of a river. On that ground we quash the order and direct the fine, it paid, to be refunded.