JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners were convicted by the Deputy Magistrate under sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced two of them to a fine and the rest to imprisonment. They appealed to the Sessions Judge, who reduced the fines, upholding the conviction against all the Petitioners, and the sentence against those who were sentenced to imprisonment. The riot is said to have been committed in connection with the seizure of cattle in order that they might be impounded. It seems to us that there has really been no trial of the appeal at all. The learned Sessions Judge begins by observing that the true question in the case is whether the cattle were legally impounded or not. He then says that the test of the truth of the conflicting accounts of the affair must be found in the question whether it took place on the date alleged by the complainants' side, or on that alleged by the accused ; and that the complainants' story appears to be the correct one. He then considers the question of sentence and of compensation to the complainants. It is impossible to gather from the judgment of the Appellate Court that it dealt with a case of rioting. No facts are stated, and no reasons are given for the conclusion to which the Judge arrives, if he can be said, indeed, to have arrived at any conclusion upon the occurrence. 2. It has been suggested by the learned Government pleader that we should make up for the deficiencies in the judgment of the Appellate Court by having course to that of the Deputy Magistrate. But we are not prepared for such a course. It is not for us, but it is for the Sessions Judge, to go into the evidence and to try the appeal in a proper manner. We accordingly set aside the order of the Sessions Judge made on the 28th February 1902, and direct that the appeal be retried and a proper judgment recorded according to law. Pending the disposal of the appeal the sentences will remain suspended, and those of the Petitioners who were sentenced to imprisonment will remain on bail as at present.