JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Puri, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 383(1)(a) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (Orissa Act 23 of 1950) for contravention of the provisions of Section 215(1) of that Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 55/- passed on him for that offence, by a First Class Magistrate of Puri. 2. The Petitioner is an Advocate of Puri town. The Puri Municipality started a criminal case against him on the allegation that he obstructed the flow of water in a municipal drain which passes through his garden in Bankimuhan in Puri town by putting bandhs across the same and taking the water for irrigating his garden-thereby causing accumulation of drain water and providing a breeding place for mosquitoes and causing nuisance to the public. On 2-7-1962 the Health Inspector of the Puri Municipality (p.w. 1) visited the spot and found the obstruction. He then submitted a report to the Health Officer of the Municipality (p.w. 3). The latter, on 3-7-1962, issued a notice on the Petitioner to remove the obstruction within 24 hours but as it was not removed though the notice was served on the Petitioner on 7-7-1962, prosecution was launched against him on 22-7-1962, after obtaining the sanction of the Executive Officer of the Municipality. 3. To prove the case against the Petitioner the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the Health Inspector (p.w. 1), the Malaria Supervisor (p.w. 2) and the Health Inspector stated that the pucca portion of the municipal drain ends at the compound of the Petitioner, but that in continuation of the same there was a kutcha drain of the Municipality reading towards Chakrathirtha side. According to him, though this kutcha portion of the drain West enclosed within the compound of the Petitioner, it was a Municipal drain which used to be regularly cleaned by the Municipal sweepers. They also used to spray oil on the drain with a view to prevent the breeding mosquitoes. He further stated that he used to supervise this work twice a week. He also added that the drain was blocked by earthen bunds at two places and that he had seen these bundhs two or three months prior to the filing of the prosecution report. He further stated that he used to supervise this work twice a week. He also added that the drain was blocked by earthen bunds at two places and that he had seen these bundhs two or three months prior to the filing of the prosecution report. He is not clear as to whether the bundhs were put at the instance of the Petitioner but he stated that people of the Petitioner used to put the bundh on the drain and take away the water for irrigating his garden. P.W. 2 the Malaria Supervisor also stated that the kutcha drain belonged to the Municipality though it passed through the garden of the Petitioner. P.W. 3 the Health Officer also deposed on the same lines. 4. Mr S.K. Ray appearing for the Petitioner urged that there was no satisfactory evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the drain in question was a public drain of the Puri Municipality and that, consequently a prosecution for contravention of Section 215(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act was not justified. Sub-section (1) of Section 215 of the Orissa Municipal Act says that if any obstruction is put across a public drain so as to interfere in any way with the flow of water over that drain, whether the drain passes through a public or private ground, the person would be guilty of contravention of that section. The language of the section therefore shows that there may be a public drain passing through the private land of another person. The evidence of the three prosecution witnesses as stated above shows that the drain in question in this case is of that type. It is true that none of them could say clearly that they had seen the necessary papers and satisfied themselves that the ownership of the drain vested with the Municipality. But the Petitioner also; in his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure never claimed the drain to be his private drain. He being an Advocate may be presumed to know the law on the subject and really if the drain was a private drain be would have said so clearly. Moreover, on the evidence of P.W. 1 (already referred to) it is clear that the Municipality was cleaning the drain though it was inside the compound of the Petitioner and also used to spray oil over it. Moreover, on the evidence of P.W. 1 (already referred to) it is clear that the Municipality was cleaning the drain though it was inside the compound of the Petitioner and also used to spray oil over it. Section 211 of the Municipal Act gives an indication that where the drain is a private drain, though the municipality may have control over the same, the cleaning of that drain shall be done at the expenses of the owner of the premises in which the drain is found. It may therefore be reasonably inferred that for the purpose of the present prosecution the drain in question, though a kutch one belongs to the Puri Municipality. 5. It was next contended that Section 383(1)(a) of the Orissa Municipal Act refers to contravention of any of the provisions of the sections specified in the first column of Schedule IV of the Act and that in Schedule IV in column 4 the subject is described as "Unlawful construction of building over public drain". On the basis of this entry in the said column Mr. Ray contended, with considerable ingenuity, that only unlawful construction of a building over a public drain would amount to a contravention of Section 215 for the purpose of attracting the penal provisions of Section 383(1)(30) and that mere obstruction of the flow of water over a public drain may not amount to such contravention. I am unable to accept this contravention. Section 383(1)(30) clearly says that the contravention may be in respect of the sections specified in the first column of Schedule IV. In that column the section specified is Section 215. Hence the provisions of Section 215 of the Act would be attracted and not merely the act of unlawful construction of a building over the public drain, referred to in column 3 of that Schedule IV. That is only a summary way of describing the contents of Section 215 and cannot be said to be exhaustive. In view of the clear language of Section 215(1) to the effect that none can cause any obstruction to a public drain without the permission of the Municipality, any such obstruction would come within the scope of the prohibition in Section 383(1)(30) of the Act. 6. In view of the clear language of Section 215(1) to the effect that none can cause any obstruction to a public drain without the permission of the Municipality, any such obstruction would come within the scope of the prohibition in Section 383(1)(30) of the Act. 6. It was then contended that on the evidence of P.W. 1 it was clear that the obstruction, if any, may have been caused by some servant of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner (as the master) cannot, be held guilty of contravention of Section 215 in the absence of any evidence to show that he instigated his servant to cause such obstruction. This plea was not taken when the Petitioner was examined u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. He merely denied the entire allegation and did not say that whatever her servants might have done was done without his knowledge. Moreover, for a technical offence u/s 215(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act read with Section 383(1)(a) of the same the principle of mens rea may not be applied in the absence of any provision in the section to that effect; and the master may be held vicariously liable for the acts of his servant. It is also difficult to believe that the obstruction could have been caused by the Petitioner?s servants without his knowledge. He also admitted that he received the notice of the obstruction issued by P.W. 3 and it does not appear that he took any steps to remove the obstruction on receipt of the notice. Hence it may be reasonable to hold-even assuming that at the time of the putting up of the bundh by his servants he may not have been aware of the same, that having been made aware of the same after the receipt of the notice issued by the Municipal authorities, he continued to maintain the obstruction and thereby committed contravention of Section 215 of the Orissa Municipal Act. For these reasons I see no reason to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed