Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Executive Engineer, Nadia Rivers Division Vs. Ashutosh Saha

Executive Engineer, Nadia Rivers Division vs Ashutosh Saha

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 13, 1925
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/872686

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Embankment - Bengal Embankment Act (II of 1882), Section 78--Wilful act--Excavating tank so as to diminish the efficiency, of a public embankment--Mens rea not necessary. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Executive Engineer, Nadia Rivers Division

Respondent

Ashutosh Saha

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925Cal921,(1925)ILR52Cal573

Excerpt

embankment - bengal embankment act (ii of 1882), section 78--wilful act--excavating tank so as to diminish the efficiency, of a public embankment--mens rea not necessary. - newbould and ghose, jj.1. we are unable to agree with the learned sessions judge that, in order to support a conviction under section 78 of the bengal embankment act of 1882, on the ground that the accused by any wilful act destroyed or diminished the efficiency of an embankment, it is necessary that there should be a finding that the accused acted mala fide. this section of the statute appears to make punishable acts endangering embankments even when the offender had no mens rea. the learned sessions jqdge appears to have read the section as if the words were 'wilfully destroys or diminishes the efficiency of such embankment.' the qualification is not in respect of the ultimate result of the act, but the act itself. in this case it cannot be denied that the petitioner wilfully excavated and extended his tank, and it is found that the result of that was to injure the public embankment. this is sufficient to support the conviction. let the papers be returned.

Full Judgment

Newbould and Ghose, JJ.

1. We are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that, in order to support a conviction under Section 78 of the Bengal Embankment Act of 1882, on the ground that the accused by any wilful act destroyed or diminished the efficiency of an embankment, it is necessary that there should be a finding that the accused acted mala fide. This section of the statute appears to make punishable acts endangering embankments even when the offender had no mens rea. The learned Sessions Jqdge appears to have read the section as if the words were 'wilfully destroys or diminishes the efficiency of such embankment.' The qualification is not in respect of the ultimate result of the act, but the act itself. In this case it cannot be denied that the petitioner wilfully excavated and extended his tank, and it is found that the result of that was to injure the public embankment. This is sufficient to support the conviction. Let the papers be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial