Judgment :- 1. On the complaint of the appellant, the three respondents along with eight others are tried before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Quilon for the offences punishable under Ss. 434, 447, 506 (2) and 149 IPC. All were discharged except the respondents (accused 1 to 3). Accused 1 and 2 were convicted under S.434 IPC. and the third accused under S.434 read with S.114 IPC. All of them were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. In appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and acquitted all the accused. 2. The complainant Pw.1 claimed to be the owner of 29 3/4 cents of land which was in his possession. This plot adjoins the Charthum Moodu Mosque compound. Pw.1 got the property in 1955 and though he left it uncultivated, used to collect from time to time shrubs and leaves from there for use as green manure. As the boundary marks of the plot were seen missing, the complainant moved the revenue authorities for fixing survey stones on the western boundary on the plot. On 22-1-1958 under orders of the Tahsildar Pw.10 the Revenue Supervisor measured the property and planted seven survey stones to mark the boundary. Three days later, that is, on the 25th when the complainant went to the land with some labourers to put up the ridges, the accused rushed in a body and removed three of the survey stones planted by Pw.10 and when the complainant remonstrated, accused 1 & 2 threatened to kill him and accused 1 to 3 took away the survey stones. 3. The accused denied the entire incident and pleaded that the property had formed part of the Mosque compound for the past several years. 4. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case of possession The learned Magistrate after a careful analysis of the evidence found that the property was in the possession of Pw.1. Pw.10 gave evidence about the fixing of the seven survey stones as per the orders of the Tahsildar. Besides the complainant, witnesses 2, 3, 4 and 5 gave evidence about the removal of the survey stones by accused 1 to 3. Ext. P-5 rnahazar prepared by the police showed that of the seven survey stones placed there by Pw.10 only four-remained. Besides the complainant, witnesses 2, 3, 4 and 5 gave evidence about the removal of the survey stones by accused 1 to 3. Ext. P-5 rnahazar prepared by the police showed that of the seven survey stones placed there by Pw.10 only four-remained. Accepting this evidence the learned Magistrate held that the survey stones were duly fixed by Pw.10 and three of them were removed by accused 1 to 3. 5. In appeal neither the act of fixing of the survey stones by Pw.10 nor their removal by the accused appear to have been challenged. The two grounds on which the conviction of the appellants was challenged were (i) that the possession of the property was with the mosque in which case the charge under S.434 cannot be sustained for the reason that the intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to another is wanting and (ii) that the planting of survey stones by the Revenue Supervisor will not amount to fixing a land-mark within the meaning of S.434 IPC. since the sketch prepared by him was not approved by the higher authorities. The second objection was rightly overruled. Regarding the first the learned Sessions Judge found that the Mosque was in possession of the land and added that if the accused had removed the survey stones from the land in their possession the conviction under S.434 is not sustainable as the intention to cause loss or damage to another person is not present. 6. The question as to who was in possession of the land in which the survey stones stood seems to be irrelevant in considering whether the offence of mischief with regard to those stones has been made out. S.434 IPC. reads: "Whoever commits mischief by destroying or moving any land-mark fixed by the authority of a public servant, or by any act which renders such land-mark less useful as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both." So, what we have to see is whether (1) the land-marks were fixed there by the authority of a public servant, (2) whether the accused destroyed them or moved them from their proper place or did any act which rendered such land-mark less useful as such. As the gist of the offence is mischief we have also to see whether the accused intended to cause or knew that he was likely to cause by his act wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person. It is therefore clear that possession by the accused of the land in which the land-marks were situated will not be a sufficient defence in a case where the ingredients of the offence under S.434 are made out. In the present case it has been found by the lower courts that the stones were fixed by the Revenue Supervisor after he measured the plot. It has also been found that the accused removed these stones from where they were placed by the supervisor and it goes without saying that moving survey stones from their proper place will result in the diminution of their usefulness as land-marks duly fixed. It is seen that it was the complainant who bore the expense of having the land surveyed and its boundaries demarcated by survey stones and therefore any removal of these stones will entail loss to him at least to the extent of repeating the whole process once again. All the ingredients of the offence under S. 434 are thus made out and the accused cannot escape liability by claiming that the survey stones were wrongly placed in their own land. 7. The learned counsel for the accused attempted to support the order of acquittal on another ground. According to him, as the prosecution has failed to establish that the survey stones were planted without notice to the authorities of the Mosque, it cannot be said that the removal of the stones found in the property in the possession of the Mosque would amount to mischief. This contention also cannot stand. The evidence of Pw.10 which has been rightly accepted by the courts below shows that though no notice was given to the authorities of the Mosque about the fixing of the survey stones as the Mosque was situated on a puramboke land and under the rules they were not entitled to get notice, some of the persons responsible for the management of the Mosque were actually present when the survey stones were placed by Pw.10. It cannot therefore be argued that the accused when they removed the stones were not aware of the fact that they were placed there by the authority of a public servant. 8. Destruction or removal of land-marks fixed by the authority of a public servant is a serious matter. Even if there was any procedural irregularity, it was not for the accused to take the law into their own hands. They should have moved the authorities to get the stones removed. Action such as theirs can only lead to confusion and breach of the peace. 9. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the conviction and sentence entered by the Magistrate are restored. Accused 1 and 2 are found guilty under S.434 IPC. and the third accused under S.434 read with S.114 IPC. and all the three are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 ~~ each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. The appeal is therefore allowed. Allowed.