ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - Dina, Tehlu, Jaisari, Kattal, Paras, Puranmasi, Pu-nai, Ram Shankar, Bhola, Lallan, Lalta and Bachan have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences of fine of Rs. 30/- in default to two weeks' RI each u/s 70 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in so far as they are relevant for its decision, lie within a narrow compass. The Appellants were prosecuted u/s 430 Code of Criminal Procedure for causing diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes by the cutting of the Bandh of a canal. The learned trial Judge held that the offence made out against the Appellants did not fall u/s 430 IPC but fell u/s 70 of the Act, and relying upon Sections 236 and 237, Code of Criminal Procedure and the decisions in Rajuddin v. Emperor (1) (5 ALJ p. 159) and Mewa Ram v. Emperor (2 (1934 (3) AWR 585) he convicted and sentenced them, u/s 7(sic) of the Act, as stated above. 3. On behalf of the Appellant: the short point urged before m in support of this appeal was, that as Section 70 of the Act provide a special forum for the trial (sic) offences under that section the order of the learned trial Judge convicting and sentencing the Appellants there under was without jurisdiction and hence was liable to be set aside After hearing learned Counsel I am satisfied that this contention has force. 4. Now, Section 70 of the Act lays down that offences under the said section shall be tried by such class of Magistrate as the State Government may direct in that behall. In other words, that section provides a special forum for the trial of offences under that section, and it is only such class of Magistrate as the State Government may direct in that behalf that can take cognizance of. offences under that section. If any other class of Magistrate or court took cognizance of such an offence he, or it, would be acting without jurisdiction and the entire proceedings before him, or it, would be void. The learned trial Judge relied upon the provisions of Sections 236 and 237, Code of Criminal Procedure for convicting the Appellants u/s 70 of the Act. If any other class of Magistrate or court took cognizance of such an offence he, or it, would be acting without jurisdiction and the entire proceedings before him, or it, would be void. The learned trial Judge relied upon the provisions of Sections 236 and 237, Code of Criminal Procedure for convicting the Appellants u/s 70 of the Act. Those provisions are, however, applicable to the trials of offences under the Indian Penal Code only (vide Section 28 Code of Criminal Procedure). No doubt in the two decisions referred to above this Court altered the conviction from one u/s 430 IPC to one u/s 70 of the Act, but in those cases the point urged by Sri. J.N. Ghatterji in this case, was not raised and decided. As the learned trial Judge did not possess the jurisdiction to try offences u/s 70 of the Act, he could not assume that jurisdiction and convict the Appellants for an offence under that section. In such a case as soon as he was satisfied that no offence u/s 430 IPC was made out he should have acquitted the Appellants thereunder and left it to the State to take such other and further steps as it might have been advised to take in that behalf. 5. The result, therefore, is that I set aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellants, allow their appeal, and direct that the fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them.