JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner was convicted of the offence of rioting under sec. 147, I. P. C., and of abetment of theft under sec. 379, read with sec. 114, I. P. C., and sentenced on each count to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The charge under sec. 147, I. P. C., set out the common object of the rioters to be destruction of the Complainant's fencing and raising of a new fencing on the Complainant's land. The conviction under sec. 379, read with sec. 114, was set aside on appeal. There was further an order passed under sec. 522, Cr. P. C., directing delivery to the Complainant of the piece of land that had been taken possession of by the Petitioner unlawfully. The findings of the lower Courts clearly show that though there was the conviction under sec. 147, I. P. C., it was not for the use of criminal force but for causing violence in prosecution of the common object. In sec. 349, I P. C., the term "force" is defined as being applicable to force when used in connection with human body ; and under sec. 522, Cr. P. C., delivery of immoveable property may be made to the person who had been dispossessed of it when the accused is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force. In the present instance violence was caused to the fencing and not to any person. Under the circumstances the order under sec. 522, Cr. P. C., should not have been passed inasmuch as there was no use of criminal force to any individual. This Rule therefore must be made absolute and the order directing delivery of possession of the land in question to the Opposite Party is set aside.