JUDGMENT Bartley, J. - This Rule was issued to show cause why the conviction of the Petitioner and the sentence passed upon him under sec. 32 of the Police Act should not be set aside. The Petitioner, a sole licensee under sec. 30 (3) of that Act, took out a procession on the Janmastami day. One of the conditions of the license was that no weapon should be carried by any person in the procession. In a procession of some five thousand people about a hundred carried lathis, though this was unknown to the licensee. ' 2. The Petitioner was convicted on the finding that he had violated one of the conditions of his license, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. 3. A Rule was then obtained from this Court when it was held that there was no clear finding whether or not the Petitioner had violated the terms of his license by not taking due care to see that no weapons were carried. 4. The case was therefore remanded for a finding whether the licensee had violated the conditions of his license by not taking due care to see that they were fulfilled. 5. Both the Courts below have again found concurrently that, in fact, due care was not taken and have affirmed the conviction. 6. The present Rule was then issued, and the substantial point of law taken was that violating the conditions of a license cannot extend in law to "passive violation"--a phrase used in the order disposing of the former application. 7. Strictly speaking, this question cannot now be agitated before us. 8. The order of remand made by this Court was made on the footing that there could be a violation of the conditions of the license by lack of due care to see that they were fulfilled. 9. If it were, however, open to us to examine that position, we should find no difficulty. The facts are that a license was issued to the Petitioner as a sole licensee to take out a procession on condition that no arms were carried by its members. Arms were carried by some of them and that condition, therefore, was broken. 10. According to the Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word, "to violate," is, "to fail duly to keep or observe." 11. Arms were carried by some of them and that condition, therefore, was broken. 10. According to the Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word, "to violate," is, "to fail duly to keep or observe." 11. In the present case the terms of the license were not duly kept or observed. Therefore, the license was violated. The licensee had undertaken to observe the terms of the license and failed to do so. 12. In view, moreover, of the findings of the Courts below that the licensee had, in fact, failed to exercise due care, no other question of law can arise. 13. The Petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 and we have been asked to reduce that sentence in view of the position that he did not know that the terms of his license were violated. 14. We were originally disposed to modify the sentence on that ground. But on further consideration we feel that we are unable to do so. 15. A person who is permitted to take out a procession on the strict condition that no arms shall be carried and who afterwards permits this condition to be violated or ignores its violation must accept the legal responsibility which attaches to any breach of the license which has been issued to him, and we do not think that in the present case the penalty imposed is, in any way, unduly severe in view of the facts of the case. This Rule is accordingly discharged and the conviction and the sentence upon the Petitioner are affirmed. Akram, J. I agree.