JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule, calling upon the District Magistrate of Nuddea to show cause why the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Meherpur, under sec. 106, C. Cr. P., should not be set aside. The facts are these: The applicants were charged with rioting under sec. 147, I. P. C., and were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 or, in default, to undergo one week's rigorous imprisonment. They were also each directed under sec. 106, C. Cr. P., to execute a bond for Rs. 100 with two sureties of Rs. 50 to keep the peace for one year, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for that period. 2. The Sub-divisional Magistrate in his judgment says:- "The prosecution evidence and the accused persons' statements lead me to conclude that the prosecution tried to take possession of land which is in the " possession of one Fatik Khan, the father of the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and the uncle of the accused Nos. 3 and 4. The accused used more force in preventing this than they had a right to do." On this ground he found all the accused guilty under sec. 147, I. P. C. But we do not think he was justified in binding down the accused under sec. 106, C. Cr. P., to keep the peace: because this will have the effect of preventing their resisting any further attempt by the complainant to take possession of the land, to which, apparently, he has no right. The Magistrate finds that the accused persons are in occupation of the land and that the complainant tried to take possession of it. The accused may have committed an offence under sec. 147, I. P. C., because they are said to have used more force than was necessary. But that is no reason why they should be bound down to keep the peace, seeing that the complainant is the party who is likely to break the peace. We therefore make the rule absolute and set aside the order binding down the applicants before us to keep the peace.