JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the conviction and sentence in this case should not be set aside. The conviction is one for mischief punishable under sec. 426 of the Indian Penal Code; and the ground upon which our interference is asked for, is, that the evidence shows that the accused was acting in the exercise of a bond fide claim of right. 2. No one appears to show cause; but the learned District Magistrate has forwarded an explanation submitted by the trying Magistrate. With reference to that explanation we may observe that, though it is open to a Magistrate called upon to shew cause, to submit his remarks in answer to the grounds urged by Petitioner who obtained rule, it is not open to the trying Magistrate to submit observations with a view to supplement or add to his judgment, as the trying Magistrate in his explanation in this case has sought to do with reference to certain points. 3. After hearing the learned vakil for the Petitioner and considering the explanation submitted, we are of opinion that there is a fair conflict of evidence in this case upon the question whether the accused, in removing portions of the fence in dispute for which he has been found guilty, was not acting in the exercise of a bond fide claim of right of way over the land across which the fence had been put so as to stop the way; and If that is so, it cannot be said that the removal of the fence was effected by the accused with intent to cause, or with knowledge that be was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, so as to make his act amount to the offence of mischief as defined in sec. 425, I.P.C. 4. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence in this case, and order the refund of the fine if it has been realised. 5. As the conviction of the Petitioner has been set aside, the order made under sec. 31 of the Court Fees Act, directing the accused to repay to the complainant the fee paid by him upon his petition of complaint must also be set aside, as also the order directing the execution of the security bond by the accused under sec. As the conviction of the Petitioner has been set aside, the order made under sec. 31 of the Court Fees Act, directing the accused to repay to the complainant the fee paid by him upon his petition of complaint must also be set aside, as also the order directing the execution of the security bond by the accused under sec. 106, Cr. P.C. If the Magistrate has any reason for thinking that the accused is likely to commit any act which may lead to a breach of the peace, he may take such proceedings against him as the law authorises.