JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner in this case has been convicted under sec. 76 (6) of the Embankment Act II (B. C.) of 1882 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 or in default be imprisoned for two weeks. It has been found that he had by the erection of a bund interfered with the drainage in a protected tract. It was not denied that he put up the bund but it was alleged in defence that the Petitioner was not aware that a notification had been published in the Calcutta Gazette declaring that the tract in which the blind was erected was protected under the Act. That a notification was published appears from the Calcutta Gazette of the 11th March 1901 with reference to the tract in question. 2. Sec. 6 of the Act provides that the Lieutenant-Governor may from time to time declare the limits of any tract within which the provisions of cl. (6), sec. 76 shall take effect and that the said provisions shall take effect one month after the publication of such notification. The notification therefore had the effect of law one month after the 11th March 1901 whereas the bund was not erected till some time in 1902. 3. Sec. 6 goes on to provide further that as soon as possible after the publication of the notification the Collector shall cause a translation of the notification in the vernacular to be published in the manner prescribed in sec. 80. Sec. 80 is as follows : --"Every proclamation and general notice by this Act required to be issued or given shall be published by affixing a copy of the same in the office of every Collector, Sub-divisional Officer and Munsif within whose jurisdiction, and at every police-station within the limits of which, any lands affected by such proclamation or notice are known by the Collector to be situated ; and by affixing copies of the same in conspicuous positions in such hats, bazars, towns, villages or other public places as the Collector may direct ; and also by giving notice by beat of drum at such public places that such copies have been affixed and that one copy of the papers containing the information which is the subject of such proclamation or general notice is open to inspection by all concerned at the office of the Collector." 4. The Deputy Magistrate who tried the case has found, with sufficient clearness in our opinion, that the notification which he describes as the prohibitory order was published in the manner indicated by the Act, and that this having been done every one concerned is bound by it and that the denial of all knowledge of the publication by the Petitioner does not affect the prosecution on the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It was also found that the notification was proved to have been duly promulgated at the nearest hat, that is, the hat nearest to the place where the bund was erected. 5. A rule was granted to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside on the ground that it was not found, and it had been stated, that there was no evidence that the proclamation was duly made in the terms of sec. 80 of the Act. 6. At the hearing of the rule it has been contended before us that it was necessary to a conviction under sec. 76 (6) for the prosecution to prove that each and every of the matters and things directed by sec. 80 had been duly carried out. We are unable to accede to this contention. In our opinion the notification took effect on the expiration of one month from its publication in the Gazette. The direction is sec 6 as to the publication of the notification in the manner directed by sec. 80 is merely directory and intended to inform people living in the locality. The further directions in sec. 80 as to the publishing of proclamations and the issuing notices is intended to serve the same purpose. Failure to comply with either provision cannot override the declaration in sec. 6 that the provisions of the notification shall take effect one month from the publication of the notification. 7. The rule appears to us to have been granted under a misapprehension as to the finding. As already stated the Deputy Magistrate has found that the notification was duly published in the manner indicated in the Act. The allegation that there is no evidence that the notification was duly published in the terms of sec. 80 is not borne out by the record. As already stated the Deputy Magistrate has found that the notification was duly published in the manner indicated in the Act. The allegation that there is no evidence that the notification was duly published in the terms of sec. 80 is not borne out by the record. Rai Charan Das who is described as the Zilladar of the Irrigation Department in his evidence stated that the notification was proclaimed by beat of drum, in the locality as prescribed by sec. 80 that he himself had the proclamation (notification) published by beat of drum in various hats (the names of which he mentioned) and that he affixed copies of the notification in these hats. It was not proclaimed that the copies of the notification were affixed at the Collector's, Munsif's and Sub-divisional Katcharies and at the Thana, but it was stated that a copy was with the Department for the inspection of all concerned. He was unable to say whether copies had been affixed at the Katcharies and Thanas as prescribed, as that was a matter concerning the Collector's office. There was other evidence of a similar character. 8. We are not prepared to say that it is immaterial in the case of a prosecution under sec. 76 (6) that the provisions of secs. 6 and 80 have not been complied with. Now, compliance with such provisions would be most material on the question of punishment. 9. The rule, it is to be observed, is in terms based upon the ground "that the proclamation was not duly made in the terms of sec. 80 of Act II, B.C. of 1882." By "proclamation" as here used, we understand the notification referred to in sec. 6. The Act nowhere requires the publication of any proclamation though curiously sec. 80 provides for the mode in which every proclamation required to be issued shall be published. 10. It is not necessary to decide on the evidence whether there had been a sufficient compliance with the provisions of secs. 6 and 80, but there certainly is a considerable body of evidence tending to show that the requirements of the law have been observed. In dealing with the rule we are bound by the finding of the Deputy Magistrate that this notification was duly published. Under these circumstances we think that the order of the Deputy Magistrate was right and that the rule must be discharged.