JUDGMENT 1. Proceedings have been taken to prosecute the Petitioners for offences under secs. 154 and 155, I. P. C., in regard to their alleged misconduct or neglect in respect of a riot or unlawful assembly committed considerably more than two years before these proceedings were taken. We do not desire to be understood as laying down any limitation in time for such prosecutions but it seems to us that, having regard to the nature of the offences before us, prosecutions should not be state, for, if they are instituted at such a length of time, as in the present case, after the alleged commission of the offences, they do not, in our opinion, fulfil the object of the law in making such acts or omissions as are now charged offences. The object of the law seems to be to impress upon landholders their responsibilities and obligations in respect of riots or unlawful assemblies committed under the circumstances mentioned in those sections, and, in order to attain the object in view, it is necessary that prosecutions in respect of such offences should be instituted without delay so as to be wholesome warnings not only to the persons concerned but to others. In the present case it is admitted by the Magistrate in his explanation that the conduct or neglect of the Petitioners which has led to their being prosecuted was made known in the course of a trial held more than two years ago and that it was not until two years later that these proceedings were brought to his notice and an order for the prosecution of the Petitioners obtained. The Magistrate himself admits that, at the time he sanctioned the prosecution, he was not aware that the riot had taken place so long ago and he seems to have been moved to do so not with reference so much to the offences said to have been committed but because the district of which he is the Magistrate is notorious for rioting and that it is desirable that the instigators of riots should be punished. Having regard to the admission of the Magistrate that he was not aware that this was a state prosecution at the time when he ordered it and also having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and the special character of the law constituting the offences, we think that the prosecution was illadvised and that no further proceedings should be taken.