JUDGMENT 1. Proceedings under sec. 107, Cr. P. Code, were taken against the two Petitioners and their relation Maksudan Choudhury with whom they are at enmity; and though the two Petitioners are on one side and Maksudan is opposed to them the proceedings against all three were taken against them jointly in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate. The result of the proceedings was that an order was passed against the two Petitioners binding them over to keep the peace for one year, while Maksudan Choudhury was discharged. The Petitioners afterwards moved this Court in the exercise of its revisionary powers to set aside the order passed against them and obtained a rule on the 9th August 1906. 2. The main ground urged in support of the rule has been that the Magistrate erred in law in taking proceedings jointly against the Petitioners and Maksudan Choudhury, the interest of each party being opposed to that of the other. It is further contended that they have been prejudiced in the proceedings inasmuch as they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of Maksudan Choudhury while the Deputy Magistrate has been Influenced, possibly unconsciously, by that evidence against the Petitioners. 3. It seems that certain witnesses for the Crown were first examined against both parties, each party being allowed to cross-examine them. Witnesses for the defence of Maksudan were then examined and cross-examined on behalf of the Grown. Afterwards when the Petitioners wished to cross-examine these witnesses objection was raised by Maksudan and the objection was allowed on the authority of the ruling of this Court In the case of Pran Krishna Saha v. The King-Emperor 8 C. W. N. 180 (1903). Witnesses were afterwards examined on behalf of the Petitioners, Maksudan Choudhury not being allowed to cross-examine them. 4. It appears to us that the ruling which the Deputy Magistrate has relied on has not been correctly understood. In that case the learned Judges held that the proceedings were bad in law on the ground that two opposing parties had been proceeded against and bound down to keep the peace in one proceeding, and they relied in support of the view which they took on the decision of the Privy Council In the case of Subrahmania Ayyar v. The King-Emperor 5 C. W. N. 866 : s. c. I. L. R. 25 Mad. 61 (1901). 61 (1901). The learned Judges, It Is true, refer to certain remarks made In a judgment of this Court In the case of Bachu Mullah v. Siaram Singh I. L. R. 14 Cal. 358 (1886) but their decision is based on the judgment of the Privy Council to which we have referred. That view has been followed by this Court In later oases and we see no reason to dissent from it. 5. The case of Srikanta Nath Shaha v. The Emperor 9 C. W. N. 1898 (1905). to which we have been referred does not support the opposite view that opposing parties can be jointly proceeded against under sec. 107, Cr. P. C, though it lays down that several members of one party may be proceeded against jointly if it is clear that they were associated together with one common object of doing act likely to lead to a breach of the peace. 6. We are not able to adopt the reasoning of the learned Judges in the case of Pran Krishna Saha v. The King-Emperor 8 C. W. N. 180 (1903). as far as they are based on the case of Bechu Mullah v. Siaram Singh I. L. R. 14 Cal. 358 (1886). but as we hold that the main basis for the decision in that case was the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Subrahmania Ayyar v. The King Emperor 5 C. W. N. 1836 : s. c. I. L. R. 25 Mad. 61 (1901). we are of opinion that that decision is binding on us. We accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the order under sec. 107, Cr. P. C., passed by the Deputy Magistrate against the two Petitioners on the ground that the order is bad in law as under the law two opposing parties cannot be proceeded against and bound over to keep the peace in one proceeding.