JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This is an application by way of revision from an order of the Joint Magistrate convicting the accused, under section 426 of the Penal Code, 1860 and fining him under the section Rs. 100 or two months' rigorous imprisonment in default, and also from a conviction under section 6, sub-section 3 of Act No. IV of 1897, and a fine of Rs. 50 or one month's simple imprisonment in default. It appears that the accused by diverting a river for a considerable distance entrapped large quantities of fish in a section of the river. He so arranged that from time to time a fresh supply of fish could be let into the trap. It appears also that a very great quantity of immature fish were destroyed by boys and beasts of prey while so entrapped, the accused presumably removing for his own benefit all mature and marketable fish, Two questions have been raised by way of defence, firstly, that this was private water and that therefore section 6 of the Fisheries Act does not apply, no notification having been issued by the Local Government under sub-section II, section 6, and secondly, that the prosecution cannot be sustained under section 426, inasmuch as fish or rights of fishing are not “property” within the meaning of section 426. As to the first point it is admitted by Mr. Porter that the water is private water and that no notification was issued at the time of the commission of the offence. One bank of the river so far as fishery rights are concerned appears to be held by Mr. Powell, under whom the accused claims, and the Dehra Dun Fishing Association are restricted to fishing with a rod or line or at least that they are not entitled under the lease to use nets or engines for the capture of fish. It is clear that the water is “private water” within the meaning of the section, and therefore the conviction under the Fisheries Act must be set aside. The other question, namely, whether or not the accused could be convicted under section 426 is one of some difficulty. Mr. It is clear that the water is “private water” within the meaning of the section, and therefore the conviction under the Fisheries Act must be set aside. The other question, namely, whether or not the accused could be convicted under section 426 is one of some difficulty. Mr. Ross Alston has cited the case of Bhagiram Dome v. Abar Dome, [1888] I.L.R., 15 Cal., 388, where, it was held that fish caught in public river could not be the subject-matter of theft under section 378 of the Penal Code, 1860. 2. In that case the accused had been convicted under a number of sections, including section 426, but the evidence shows that all they did was to catch fish with a net in a river in which they had no right to fish. The learned Judges dealt with various sections, including section 426. A right of fishing although “property” has been held not to be such a right as to be the subject-matter of a criminal trespass under section 441, and the Court held in the case cited by Mr. Ross Alston that the accused could not be convicted under section 426. The facts of the present case are, however, quite different from the case decided in the Calcutta High Court. The accused in that case did not in any way interfere with the river; in the present case the accused most materially interfered, with the river, for, by the dams which he placed above and below he practically reduced a section to dry land or land with a very shallow covering of water upon it. Under section 425 of the Penal Code, 1860, a person commits mischief, who knowing that he is likely to cause damage to any person, causes any such change in any property or in the situation thereof or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously and under the explanation to that section it is not essential that the property interfered with shall belong to the persons injuriously affected Now it is quite clear that the river bed was the property of Government. The accused caused a change in the river and he must have known that the alteration of the river and the destruction of thousands of fish, mature and immature, caused thereby, would injuriously affect the Dehra Dun Fishing Association. The accused caused a change in the river and he must have known that the alteration of the river and the destruction of thousands of fish, mature and immature, caused thereby, would injuriously affect the Dehra Dun Fishing Association. I accordingly think that when he deliberately changed the course and condition of the river, he was guilty of the offence mentioned in section 426 of the Penal Code, 1860. I accordingly set aside so much of the Magistrate's order as convicted the accused under section 6 of the Fisheries Act, and also so much of the said order as imposes a fine under that section, and I confirm the conviction and sentence under section 426 of the Penal Code, 1860.