JUDGMENT Stevens and Harington, JJ. - The learned Sessions Judge in upholding the conviction u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code in the case expressed the opinion that the order which had been passed by the first Court requiring security to keep the peace under the provisions of Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was one, to use his own expression, of which he doubted the advisability; but he held that he could not interfere with it on appeal. 2. This Rule was granted to show cause why the order u/s 106 should not be considered by the Sessions Judge, inasmuch as it was a part of the case in appeal before that officer. 3. Sub-section 3 of Section 106 provides that an order under the section may be made by an Appellate Court and it would, we think, be very strange if the Legislature empowered an Appellate Court to pass such an order for the first time in appeal and yet did not empower it to set aside an order of the same kind in appeal after it had been passed by the Court of first instance. It seems to us that a case of this kind is within the scope of Clause (d) of Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that an Appellate Court may make any amendment, or any consequential or incidental order, that may be just and proper. We think that an order in appeal, setting aside an order of the first Court made u/s 106, is an incidental order within the meaning of Section 423. 4. We therefore make the rule absolute and we remit the case to the Appellate Court to consider the order u/s 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.