Aston, J - (1.)In this case the Magistrate who tried and convicted the accused was satisfied on the evidence in the case that the accused set fire to some rubbish in his own field in such close proximity to a Government forest that he knew he was likely to cause destruction by fire to Government property, if he did not take precautions to prevent the spreading of the fire he had lit and he took no real precaution. The conclusions arrived at by the Magistrate on the statement of the accused himself, establish the offence of mischief. Under the definition of mischief in Section 425, Indian Penal Code, " whoever with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage causes destruction of any property, commits mischief." And under the explanation to that section it is sufficient if he knows he is likely to cause damage to any person by injuring any property. So that, even if we went into the facts, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the Magistrate who tried the case.
(2.)The District Magistrate has referred the case, not because he has come to the conclusion that the prosecution was detrimental to the interests of forest administration (a reason of doubtful materiality in an application for revision), but because the accused has "failed to appeal." Under Section 439, Clause 5, we are precluded from exercising our powers of revisioa at the instance of an accused who had a right of appeal and did not exercise it. That the accused himself has not appealed is not a sufficient reason for referring this case to us to exercise our powers of revision. Moreover it is a well established rule of this Court that in exercising the powers of revision this Court interferes, on questions of fact, only in very exceptional circumstances. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere on questions of fact has often been affirmed: and that in very exceptional cases this power should be exercised is obvious, such as where there has been a conviction of a clearly innocent person and but for the powers given to the High Court to interfere as a Court of Revision the only remedy A would be by petition to the Government to exercise its powers of prerogative.
(3.)It is suggested that the District Magistrate as Collector is concerned in the forest administration of his District but we are concerned to see that unnecessary uncertainty is not introduced into the administration of justice by disregard of settled rules of practice.