JUDGMENT 1. This case is an off-shoot of a dispute between joint landlords as regards the possession of a property. Sometime ago there was a proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P. C, in which both the zemindars were parties. The complainant's side was put in possession by an order of the Magistrate under the section. On the application of the other party, the masters of the present Petitioners, this Court set aside the order of the Magistrate. The result was that disputes began again, and on the day of occurrence the Petitioners before us with others 30 or 40 in number went armed with lathies for the purpose evidently of taking possession of a hut of which the complainant's side were in possession. It does not appear that force was actually used. The complainant's side left the place and the Petitioners before us succeeded in getting possession of the hut. The Sub divisional Magistrate of Madaripur, on the facts proved before him came to the conclusion that the Petitioners were guilty under sec. 143, I. P. C, and he sentenced the Petitioner No. 1 to one month's rigorous Imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 200, and the other Petitioners to one month's rigorous imprisonment. He also passed an order under sec. 106, Cr. P. C., directing the Petitioners to execute bonds with two securities to keep the peace for one year. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Faridpur has affirmed the conviction and sentence. 2. On an application to us, we Issued this rule calling on the District Magistrate of Faridpur to show cause why the sentence passed on the Petitioners should not be reduced and why the order made under sec. 106 passed on the Petitioners should not be set aside. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed before us the judgments of the lower Courts and we have perused portions of the evidence. The case is one of common occurrence in the Eastern districts, both parties being entitled to joint possession. But none of the parties have the right under the law to attempt to take forcible possession or take forcible possession after assembling a number of armed men and going to the place and thereby intimidating the people in possession. In fact in this view of the case we did not issue the rule on the question of the correctness of the conviction. In fact in this view of the case we did not issue the rule on the question of the correctness of the conviction. But on the facts found by both the lower Courts we are satisfied that the sentence of one mouth's rigorous imprisonment is too severe. The masters of the Petitioners had a right to possession and if they did something which was not warranted by law, but which did not lead actually to a breach of the peace, the sentence ought not to be so severe. 4. We accordingly reduce the sentence on the Petitioners to the period already suffered by them. We are told that the period already suffered is sixteen days. We think that that is sufficient having regard to the offence committed by the Petitioners. We do not however interfere with the sentence of fine, which will really affect the zemindar in whose interest the Petitioners acted unlawfully. 5. As regards the order under sec. 106, Cr. P. C, the difficulty which we feel is that it might lead to the result of practical dispossession of the Petitioners and their masters. 6. Sec 106, Cr. P. C." not only refers to rioting, assault or other offence involving a breach of the peace, but also to an assembly of armed men with the evident intention of committing a breach of the peace. Here the evidence goes to show that a number of armed men were assembled and the intention of the Petitioners was to take forcible possession which might lead to a breach of the peace. It is true that an offence under sec. 143, I. P. C, is not necessarily one which would justify a Magistrate on conviction of the accused to pass an order under sec 106; but the facts of this case are somewhat peculiar and we are of opinion that the order under sec. 106 should be affirmed. At the same time we think having regard to the observations we have already made that the order would amount practically to an order preventing the Petitioners or their masters from taking possession of the property. It is desirable that the other side should be bound down in a proceeding under sec 107, Cr. 106 should be affirmed. At the same time we think having regard to the observations we have already made that the order would amount practically to an order preventing the Petitioners or their masters from taking possession of the property. It is desirable that the other side should be bound down in a proceeding under sec 107, Cr. P. C. With these observations we make the rule absolute as regards the sentence only, and direct that this order be sent to the District Magistrate in order that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may take such action under sec. 107, Cr. P. C, as he may think fit against the opposite party.