Section 97 of The Bengal Irrigation Act, 1876 — Saving of prosecution under other laws

Bare section text

Official Legislative Text

Nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any offence punishable under this Act:

Educational Study Layer

Summary

Allows a person to be prosecuted under other laws for any canal-related offenses.
Ensures this Act does not prevent other legal actions, trials, or indictments from being pursued under different statutes.
Preserves the application of the general penal code and other state laws to acts that damage irrigation systems.
Mandates a strict constitutional-style shield against double punishment for the same offense.

Practical examples

1On October 10, 2026, a contractor named Dev deliberately damages a canal bridge to steal the steel reinforcement. Although this is a canal offense under this Act, the police choose to prosecute Dev for theft and mischief under the general Indian Penal Code instead. This prosecution under another law is fully valid because Section 97 of this Act preserves prosecutions under other laws.

2On October 20, 2026, a worker named Sunil dumps toxic waste from his tannery into a canal, violating Section 93(4) of this Act. The local pollution control authority prosecutes Sunil under environmental protection laws instead of this Act. Section 97 of this Act ensures that this separate prosecution is not barred.

FAQ

1. Does the Bengal Irrigation Act prevent me from being prosecuted under other laws?

No, under Section 97 of this Act, nothing prevents you from being prosecuted under any other law for an offense that is also punishable under this Act.

2. Can the government choose to charge me under the general criminal code instead of this Act for a canal crime?

Yes, under Section 97 of this Act, the authorities are free to use other applicable laws, such as the Indian Penal Code, to prosecute canal-related offenses.

3. If I commit an offense under this Act, can I be punished under both this Act and another law?

No, Section 97 of this Act includes a strict proviso stating that no person shall be punished twice for the same offense.

Practice Quiz

Q1.On November 1, 2026, a man is caught destroying a canal embankment. The state decides to prosecute him under the general public property protection law rather than this Act. Is this prosecution lawful under Section 97 of this Act?

Q2.Under Section 97 of this Act, what is the key limit placed on prosecuting a person under multiple laws?

Q3.A prosecutor charges an offender under both the general criminal code and this Act for the same act of canal damage. The court acquits the offender in the first trial. Can the prosecutor continue with the second trial?

Q4.If an action is punishable by a fifty-rupee fine under this Act, but by a larger fine under the general penal code, which law can the state use to prosecute under Section 97 of this Act?

96PreviousSection 96 Persons employed on canal may take offenders into custody 98NextSection 98 Provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.

←Section 96 Section 98→