JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the sentences passed on the Petitioners in this case should not be reduced. The Petitioners were convicted by a. Deputy Magistrate with first class powers at Dacca, the first Petitioner Raj Kumar Chakraverty under sees. 147 and 323 read with sec. 114, I. P. C, and the second Petitioner Lalu Bidhyakar under secs. 147 and 325, I. P. C. Raj Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for 3 months. The second Petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six. weeks, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Dacca reduced the sentences but affirmed the convictions and directed that the term of imprisonment of each of the Appellants should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He maintained the sentences of fine. 2. The facts of this case are stated in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The complainant is one Sadhu Kalu. He was not a permanent stall-keeper in the Narsingdih market in which the occurrence took place. He sits in the market from time to time and pays toll on such days only when he sells goods there. The first accused who is an agent of the proprietors of the market prohibited the sale, of Liverpool salt in their market. When the complainant Sadhu came to sell Liverpool salt in the market both the accused with the others insisted on the complainant's leaving the place or refraining from selling Liverpool salt. The proprietors of the market had, as the learned Sessions Judge correctly says, the right to direct that any particular kinds of things should not be sold there by a person who is not a permanent shop-keeper, and if they insisted that the complainant who had no right to occupy land or sell goods there without the license of the proprietors should leave the market or should not sell Liver POOL salt, the act of the proprietors is not illegal so far as the law in this country is concerned. The complainant exceeded his right in defying the proprietors or their agent. 3. The complainant exceeded his right in defying the proprietors or their agent. 3. He record shows that there are other markets very near the market in question where complainant does sell Liverpool salt, and no hardship would result if the proprietors of Narsingdih market would not allow the sale of any particular kind of salt. The conduct of the proprietors or their agents cannot, in the circumstances, be characterised as oppressive. 4. What took place thereafter was this. The first accused directed the second accused, and there were other people too to prevent the complainant from selling Liverpool salt and then on his refusal to obey the order the second accused with others attempted to turn out the complainant. The second accused, it is clear from the evidence, hustled the complainant and destroyed a considerable quantity of salt. He was thus guilty of the offences of assault and mischief, and as there were more than five persons acting in concert for the purpose of preventing the sale of Liverpool salt and in hustling the complainant and committing miscnief they were all guilty under sec. 147. I. P. C. In the assertion of their right or supposed right they used force and committed mischief & violation of law. The actions of the Petitioners constituted offences specified in the charges against them but they were not of such a nature as to justify the imposition of a fine of Rs. 300 on the one and Rs. 100 on the other. The learned Sessions Judge has found that Sadhu received only a slight injury by being knocked down by the second accused. Under such circumstances we think that a sentence of fine of Rs. 50 on the first accused Raj Kumar Chakraverty and that of Rs. 25 on the second accused Lalu Bidhyakar will sufficiently meet the ends of justice. If they fail to pay the amounts of fine they will be rigorously imprisoned for one month and a fortnight respectively. If any higher amounts have been realized from them, such amounts should be refunded.