JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition to revise a final order u/s 137 Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the First Class Magistrate of Baramba, directing the Petitioners to remove the obstruction caused by them by the putting up of a structure across of public water channel passing through village Khoirpunga. 2. The main ground taken by Mr. M.S. Rao on behalf of the Petitioners is that the mandatory provisions of Section 139(A) Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with. The Magistrate completely overlooked the provisions of that Section. The Magistrate was fully conscious of this serious defect and in his judgment he observed that as the proceeding had lasted more than two years and as there was pressure from the Commissioner, Central Division for disposing of this case, he did not consider it necessary to have a de novo trial. He further observed that from the evidence adduced in the case it was clear that there was no denial of the existence of the public right over channel, The Magistrate has undoubtedly committed an act of indiscretion in mentioning an administrative order might have received from the Commissioner, in his judgment. But even if this portion is completely ignored his further statement to the effect that there was no denial of the existence of public right by the opposite party, seems to be fully supported by the materials on record. When the preliminary notice u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure was served on the Petitioners (Second party before the lower Court) they in their show cause petition impliedly admitted that the channel was for public use. Their principal witness Arjun padhan admitted in cross-examination that "the water channel belongs to Khairpunga". The public nature of the water channel was thus never in dispute and the only question was whether the obstruction was unlawful or not. Under these circumstances, even if the Magistrate had questioned the Petitioners, u/s 139(A) Code of Criminal Procedure before the commencement of the hearing of the case, the answer would have been to the effect that the right of the public over the water channel was not challenged. Here I am inclined to take the view that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 139(a) Code of Criminal Procedure in the circumstances of this case is a mere irregularity which would not justify the setting aside of the final order. Here I am inclined to take the view that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 139(a) Code of Criminal Procedure in the circumstances of this case is a mere irregularity which would not justify the setting aside of the final order. See also Bansidhar Marwari Vs. P.W.D.. The Petitioner also never raised this question in the lower court when he began to take evidence u/s 137 Code of Criminal Procedure For these reasons I see no ground for interfering in revision. The revision petition is rejected. Revision rejected, Final Result : Allowed