JUDGMENT 1. In this case the Petitioner has been convicted under sec. 336 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. It appears that in Jajpur in the district of Cuttack, there is a temple known as the Biroja Temple, and that year by year on the Ashtami day pilgrims and others in large numbers visit this temple in order to view the deity therein enthroned and present offerings. There are a number of shebaits, and the Petitioner, it appears, has taken a lease from some of them having a 10-anna interest and for the last few years has been the general manager of all. 2. Close by the gate leading from an outer courtyard into the chief or inner temple known as the Thakurani temple, there is a well. The well is surrounded by a masonry platform 1 to 2 feet high, and the ring or parapet of the well stands again about 1 foot above the platform. The well is otherwise unprotected. 3. On the last Ashtami day, the 8th of October 1913, at about 8 or 9 p.m. while the Police officers on duty were controlling the rush of people seeking entrance into the Thakurani's temple, a man named Dhroba Prusti fell into the well. Thereupon at the instance of the Sub-Inspector-in-charge, the Petitioner had a light placed on or near the one-foot parapet. It has then been found that at a later hour, the Petitioner had the light removed and that thereafter between 1 and 2 a.m. while the people were again crowding into the Thakurani's temple, a boy named Gananath Panda fell in the well. He had no previous knowledge of the well and in the darkness could not see it. 4. On these facts the Petitioner, who it has been found was in charge of the arrangements, has been convicted under sec. 336, i. e., of doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or safety and has been sentenced, as we have already stated, to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 5. On his behalf it is contended that the facts found do not constitute an offence within the meaning of the section. 6. We are unable to accede to this contention. 50. 5. On his behalf it is contended that the facts found do not constitute an offence within the meaning of the section. 6. We are unable to accede to this contention. On the occasion of the festival in question, the temple, it is clear, becomes a place of public resort, and it was the bounden duty of the Petitioner as the person in charge to take all reasonable precautions necessary to ensure the safety of those crowding thither by his license and invitation. The well in question stands by the path which the pilgrims must necessarily take in order to reach the shrine which they had come to visit, and in omitting to enclose the well, in omitting even to indicate its position by lights, and lastly in removing the light placed near the well at the instance of the officers on duty, it appears to us, the Petitioner acted with gross negligence and thereby endangered the safety of large numbers. The Rule is accordingly discharged.