ORDER Cuming, J. - The four petitioners who have obtained this rule have been convicted under S. 3, Private Fisheries Act, and sentenced, petitioners 1 and 2 to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each, and petitioners 3 and 4 to pay a fine of Rs. 5 each. The ground on which this rule has been granted is that the offences under Ss. 146 and 379, I.P.C., having been disclosed in the petition of complaint, and the initial statement of the complainant, and in the evidence and the value of property being worth Rs. 500 to Rs. 600, the summary trial is illegal and without jurisdiction, and the petitioners have been materially prejudiced. So far as regards S. 146 is concerned I do not think that the examination on oath of the complainant discloses an offence under S. 146. It discloses, at the highest, an offence under S. 143 which is admittedly triable summarily. As regards S. 379, as the learned Magistrate has pointed out in his explanation, the act of the petitioners did not amount to theft because the fish which have been removed were not in the possession of the complainant. They were able to go in or out of the fishery. Therefore the offence could not have been theft. The offence of which they were committed was fishing in private water which is admittedly triable summarily. Therefore there is no substance in this ground. With regard to petitioners 1 and 2 the rule was issued also on the ground that the offence of which they were convicted was not provided by law. Mr. Roy does not propose to press this ground. 2. The result is the rule is discharged.