( 1 ) THIS is a complainants appeal, by special leave, against an appellate order of acquittal passed by the First Assistant Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. The circumstances under which it arises are as follows : Mula Singh, the appellant, filed a com- plaint against Surendra Singh, Bhopal Singh, bhagwan Singh and Harbhan Singh, the respondents, alleging that on the evening of the 22nd august 1958 the latter demolished the Gul (water-course) of Kulaba No. 7 Canal Minor Nalhera which passed through their plot No. 265 in village Chapperh and irrigated the appellants field and they thus committed an offence punishable under Section 70 (1) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (Act No. VIII of 1873), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

( 2 ) ALL the respondents denied the appellants case and attributed their false implication to enmity on account of some election disputes. They examined three witnesses in their defence.

( 3 ) THE trial court on an appraisal of the evidence led by the parties found the appellants case proved and consequently convicted and sentenced each of the respondents to a fine of Rs. 45 in default to one weeks rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the lower appellate court reversed that judgment and acquitted the respondents. Hence the present appeal by, special leave.

( 4 ) BOTH the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact (1) that plot No. 265 belonged to the respondents, (2) that there was a Gul in the said plot, and (3) that the said Gul was demolished by the respondents as alleged by the appellant. The lower appellate court, however, took the view that as plot No. 265 belonged to the respondents, the mere existence of a Gul in the said plot could not confer any right upon the appellant or any one else to use it against the consent and wishes of the respondents unless he, i. e. , the appellant, or anybody else had acquired that right under some law or agreement with the respondents. On behalf of the appellant it was argued before us that this view was contrary to the provisions of the Act and so was liable to be set aside. In order, therefore, to appreciate this contention a reference to the relevant sections of the Act which bear upon this matter is necessary. We shall take up those provisions in the order in which they are relevant for the proper understanding of this case. The first three provisions to which reference has to be made are Sections 70 (1), 3 (1) (c) and 3 (2), material portions, whereof read as follows :

70. Whoever, without proper authority and voluntarily, does any of the acts following, that is to say: (1) "damages". . . . . . . . . . any canal. . . . . . . . . . . . : shall be liable, on conviction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or to both. 3. In this Act, unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context: (1) "canal" includes (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; (c) All water-courses as defined in the second clause of this section; (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; (2) "water-courses" means any channel which is supplied with water from a canal, but which is not maintained at the cost of the State Government and all the subsidiary works belonging to any such channel:

( 5 ) A plain reading of Sections 3 (1) (c) and 3 (2) shows that the water-course in question is a canal within the definition of that word as contained in Section 3 (1) and therefore falls within the purview of Section 70 of the Act. Now, in order to make out an offence under Section 70 (1)the prosecution has to establish the following three ingredients :

(1) that the respondents damaged the watercourse in question; (2) that they did so voluntarily; and (3) that they did so without proper authority.

( 6 ) ON the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below which were not, and indeed could not be, challenged before us the respondents have been found