JUDGMENT Plowden, J. - These are connected revisions from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur, dated December 31, 1943, and from the order u/s 145 Cr. P. C. of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Fatehpur, dated May 31, 1943. The judgment of the same Magistrate was also dated May 31, 1943. 2. The facts are that there was a dispute about landed property which became submerged in the ganges during the rainy season of 1942 which was an exceptionally heavy one. In October the Zamindars, according to the findings of the Courts, took possession and the tenants attempted to oust them with the result that there was a riot in which a number of people were injured. This riot is the subject matter of the case decided by the Magistrate on May 31 and by the Sessions Judge on appeal on December 1943. The Magistrate sentenced a number of people to rigorous imprisonment uuder Section 147, 447, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 I. P. C. At the same time he ordered the accused to give security u/s 106 Cr. P. C. This is illegal. It is not possible to order the accused to give security u/s 106 if they have been convicted of any offence read with Section 149. If the accused are convicted of rioting and sentenced u/s 147 or 148, it is possible to make them give security u/s 106 Cr. P. C. But if they are convicted for causing grievous hurt, arson or any other offence read with Section 149, the Magistrate cannot make them give security. At first sight this seems paradoxical because it appears that they can be ordered to give security for a less serious offence, but not for a more serious offence, but the intention of the legislature is to confine punishment within limits as far as possible. If a riot is a very serious one a long term of imprisonment can be given to all the rioters under any section read with Section 149 and the legislature considered that this was sufficient punishment with out binding over the accused u/s 106 Cr. P. C. when they came out of prison. On the other hand, for rioting the maximum term of punishment u/s 147 is two years u/s 148 three years. P. C. when they came out of prison. On the other hand, for rioting the maximum term of punishment u/s 147 is two years u/s 148 three years. Consequently it was considered reasonable that some further control should be exercised over the accused on their release from prison. Magistrate should bear this carefully in mind and if they consider an order u/s 106 Cr. P. C. is essential in the interest of public tranquility, they should acquit the accused of offences read with Section 149 and restrict their conviction to offences u/s 147 or 148 I. P. C. 3. I reduce the sentences of imprisonment under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code to the period already undergone and set aside the fine, but I maintain the order u/s 106 Cr. P. C. 4. The learned Magistrate found that the land was cultivated in October 1942 by the zamindars' party and not by the tenants who had previously cultivated it. He, therefore, ordered u/s 145 Cr. P. C. that the possession should remain with the zamindars' party until the opposite party obtained as order from a competent Court in their favour. The applicants went in revision to the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur who passed a long order, dated December 31. 1943, dismissing the revision. Objections have been made to his conclusion and arguments in the application for revision filed in this Court. The proper procedure for the Sessions Judge before whom a revision is filed is to hear counsel and to write an order of reference to this Court, giving facts and arguments if he considers reference should be made. If, however, he considers no reference should be made, he should merely say that after hearing counsel he is of opinion that no reference should be made, to the High Court. It is always possible for the applicant to apply in this Court if his application has been dismissed in the Sessions Court, but unless the Sessions Judge is prepared to refer the matter to this Court, he need not write an order giving his reasons why he is not prepared to refer it to the High Court. 5. I see no reason to disagree with the Magistrate's finding and dismiss the application.