Krishnan, J.

1. This is an application to revise the conviction under Section 430, I.P.C. of the petitioners which was confirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Koilpatti.

2. It is contended that on the findings of the appellate Magistrate the offence charged under Section 430, I.P.C., has not been made out. The appellate Magistrate found that a channel existed between Re-Sarvey Nos. 252 and 253 belonging to the accused and that it was a part of the channel which carried water from the Periakulam tank to the complainants lands, Ra-Survey Nos. 271 and 272. He also found that part of the channel between Re-Survey Nos. 252 "and 253 had been filled up by the accused recently. It is contended that these findings are not sufficient to constitute the offence of mischief. The offence as defined in the Penal Code requires as an essential element of it that the accused had the intention to cause or the knowledge that their act was likely to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Dr. Swaminadhan rightly points out that it is not sufficient to show that loss has been caused to the complainant but it is necessary to show that the loss was a wrongful loss and that his client