Judgment : The petitioner is an accused in C.CNo.54 of 1988 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. 2. He claims to be the owner of the lands in S.Nos. 180/1 and 180/3 in Thirukkattupalli. One Inbaraj is his adjacent land owner owning lands in S.Nos. 180/4 and 180/7. The said lands of Inbaraj were said to be irrigated all along by means of a channel running in S.Nos.180/1 and 180/3 belonging to the petitioner. The said channel was stated to have been destroyed in 1985 and the same had been subsequently revived by the intervention of the village officials two days prior to 30.11.1987, on which date the petitioner again was stated to have obliterated the channel and cultivated paddy crops, giving rise to the initiation of filing of a report by Inbaraj before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirukkattupalli, on 112. 1987, who registered it as Crime No.450 of 1987 for the alleged offence under Sec.430, I.P.C. After completing the formalities of the investigation, a final report under Sec. 173(2), Cr.P.C. had been laid for the offence under Sec.2(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Act, 1982 (Act XXIX of 1982) (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, which was taken on file as C.C.No.54 of 1988, on his file. 3. On receipt of process, the petitioner entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice and the Court framed charges under Sec.430, I.P.C. and under Sec.2(ii) of the Act. It is at this stage, the petitioner had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the materials collected as a whole by the investigating agency, if properly scrutinised, would point out that no offence either under Sec.2(ii) of the Act or under Sec.430, I.P.C. is made out and therefore it is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repeal such a submission. 6. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repeal such a submission. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in amplification of his submission would state that for attracting the provisions of Sec.2(ii) of the Act, the property, namely, the channel said to have been obliterated by the petitioner must fall within the definition of ‘public property’ as defined under Clause (ii) of the Explanation appended to the section and the said clause runs as follows: “Explanation- For the purposes of this Sec(i) ............. .(ii) ‘Public property’ whether movable or immovable or machinery’ means any property or machinery owned or controlled by.- .(a) the State Government; or .(b) any local authority; or .(c) the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board; or .(d) any University in this State; or .(e) any co-operative society including a land development bank, registered or deemed to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 53 of 1961); or .(f) any corporate body constituted under any Act passed by the Legislature of the State; or .(g) any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government”. 7. On the face of such a definition, since the channel runs in the patta land of the petitioner, it cannot be stated that the said channel is a public property as defined therefor. This submission of learned Counsel appears to be credible and attractive on the face of it. But on a deeper scrutiny into the same, the untenability of such a submission would get exposed. Sec.2 of the Act is captioned by the marginal noting ‘Punishment for committing mischief in respect of public property or machinery’. The said section consists of four clauses independent from the other and this is patent that all the four clauses are connected by the use of the word ‘OR’ which is disjunctive conjunction. 8. The first clause deals with punishment for commission of mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property whether movable or immovable or machinery and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards. 9. 8. The first clause deals with punishment for commission of mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property whether movable or immovable or machinery and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards. 9. The relevant clause for our purpose is clause (ii) and the said clause is couched in the following phraseology: “Whoever (ii) commits mischief by doing any act which causes or which he knows to be likely to cause a diminution of the supply of water to the public or to any person for any purpose or an inundation of, or obstruction to, any public drainage shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years, and with fine.” 1. A cursory perusal or a glance of this clause, as extracted above, would indicate that commission of mischief by doing any act, which causes or he knows to be likely to cause a diminution of the supply of water to the public or to any person for any purpose is liable to be punished for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. It does not at all say that the commission of the mischief by doing of an act must have to relate to any public property. What all is required, as stated earlier, is to cause diminution of the supply of water to the public or to any person for any purpose etc. On the face of such a salient provision, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, as reflected above, cannot at all be countenanced. 11. There are prima facie materials collected in the shape of Sec.161, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, apart from the specific averments in the first information given by Inbaraj, indicating the obliteration by the petitioner of the channel put up at the intervention of the village officials on 30.11.1987 and thereby the supply of water to the lands of Inbaraj is terminated. Such alleged act of the petitioner would fall within the ambit and sweep of Sec.430, I.P.C. 12. Such alleged act of the petitioner would fall within the ambit and sweep of Sec.430, I.P.C. 12. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, of course, framed charges both under Sec.2(ii) of the Act as well as under Sec.430, I.P.C. As per Sec.26 of the General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897), where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. As such, there is no prohibition for the prosecution of the petitioner under both the enactments. But the prohibition is there only for his punishment under both the enactments and he could as well be punished under either one of the enactments, provided proof forth came for the commission of the offence by him. 13. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.