ORDER : 1. The applicants in this case were convicted of the offence of riot. The point pressed, on their behalf is that the acts which they are found to have committed did not constitute the offence of riot. The facts found by the lower Court are as follows: 2. One Chunni, an occupancy tenant died in January last year and the zamindar made an application to the, revenue Court stating that the tenancy had lapsed in the absence of heirs. Of the present applicants Zaharya had cultivated the land as sub-tenant of Chnnni. 3. The zamindar give a lease of the land to one Budhan; the latter cultivated it and sowed a crop. Zaharya and others put in an application in the revenue Court applying that they should be entered as occupancy tenants, having jointly cultivated with Chunni. Pending orders in the case Zaharya and his friends went to the field and cut the crop sown by Budhan, and when the latter resisted they raised their lathis to strike him. Budhan ran away to save himself. 4. The question is whether the applicants can be said in these circumstances to have used force towards Budhan? The definition of criminal force is given is S. 349, I.P.C. “A person is said to use force to anther if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other * * *, provided that he thus causes that motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways mentioned in the section the first of which is by bodily power.” 5. The applicants having raised their lathis to strike Bddhan, with the result that he had to flee to save himself, clearly used force to Audhan and that by bodily power. 6. Attention has been called to the decision of Mohammad Ishaq Khan v. King-Emperor, [1904] 1 A.L.J. 602 : 1 Cr. L.J. 1057. That decision is not in the present case at all applicable. There the applicant spas not one who used force, but who ran away when attacked by his opponents. It seems to me the circumstances of this case show clearly that force, was used to Budhan which caused him to flee to save himself. 7. There is therefore no force in this application, which is accordingly rejected. There the applicant spas not one who used force, but who ran away when attacked by his opponents. It seems to me the circumstances of this case show clearly that force, was used to Budhan which caused him to flee to save himself. 7. There is therefore no force in this application, which is accordingly rejected. The applicants, must surrender to their bail and serve the rest of their sentences.