The applicants have been convicted under Section 70 of the U.P. Canal and Drainage Act and sentenced till the rising of the court. That order was maintained in appeal.

2. The prosecution case is that the applicants are the owners of plot No. 245 while the complainant Smt. Chandra Kali is the owner of plot No. 246. There was a drain running through plot No. 245 supplying water from the canal to plot No. 246. This drain was carved out during consolidation proceedings about seven years prior to the occurrence and the drain had been allotted a separate No. 242. The applicants destroyed this drain as a result of which the complainant could not get water and suffered a damage of Rs. 2,500/- as her sugarcane crop had dried up.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that there is no evidence that this drain had any sanction of the canal Department or proceedings had been taken under Sections 20 and 21 for supply of water to plot No. 246 through this drain. His argument is that the applicants admittedly being the owners of plot No. 245 could have exercised ownership in any manner they liked and could have destroyed the drain if any which had not been authorised under the Act