JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. - This is a rule issued by this Court calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the conviction of the Petitioner and sentence of fine passed upon him should not be set aside. No one appears to show cause on behalf of the Magistrate but an explanation has been submitted which has been placed before me. The Petitioner was charged with having first picketted bullocks by the side of the Municipal drain and, secondly, with having allowed offensive matter to run or be thrown into a surface drain near the public road. 2. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner in the Court below that the drain by the side of which he had picketted bullocks was not a Municipal drain and that therefore he was not liable to be convicted under bye-law 64 made under sec. 350 of the Bengal Municipal Act. It was further argued that he had not allowed offensive matter to run or be thrown in any drain belonging to the Municipality. The learned Deputy Magistrate declined to go into the question of title raised in this proceeding, namely, whether the drains in question was public drain vested in the Municipality because in his opinion sec. 270, cl. (2) of the Bengal Municipal Act as well as bye-law No. 64 are applicable to all drains. In my opinion this view is clearly unsound. Sec. 270 provides (I am quoting so much of the section as may be supposed to be applicable to the case now before me) " whoever within a Municipality causes or allows the water of any sink, sewer or cesspool or any other offensive matter belonging to him or being on his land to run down or be thrown or put upon any road or causes or allows any offensive matter to run down or be thrown into a surface drain near any road shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 25 rupees." It is obvious that this has to be read along with the first clause of that section and in construing it we must not overlook the fact that it finds a place in the Bengal Municipal Act. The only reasonable construction which can be put upon it is that the road or drain to which reference is made in the clause must be a road or drain belonging to the Municipality. The only reasonable construction which can be put upon it is that the road or drain to which reference is made in the clause must be a road or drain belonging to the Municipality. It could not have been intended by the legislature to authorise any Municipality to interfere with the user of any private drain by a private individual. In the same way bye-law No. 64 which was apparently made under sec. 350 of the Act no doubt says in broad language" no person shall tether or picket any animals on any road or by the side of any drain." But we must put a reasonable construction upon it and the only reasonable construction we may put upon it is that the road or drain in question must be a public road or a public drain. If the Municipality were by the bye-law made under sec. 350 of the Bengal Municipal Act authorised to interfere with private property it would be in my opinion ultra vires. 3. The result accordingly is that the facts found by the Deputy Magistrate are insufficient to support the conviction. 4. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute and the conviction and sentence set aside. The fine if paid will be refunded.