JUDGMENT Madeley, J. - This is a second Civil Appeal in a suit for Rs. 500 as damages brought by four Plaintiffs against Danish Ali, Station Officer of Biswan, district Sitapur, for lodging an allegedly false report u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure against the Plaintiffs. Sub-Inspector Danish Ali had got a "chabutra" belonging to Plaintiff No. 4 demolished on the 3rd March, 1939. The Moharram in 1939 fell on the 2nd and 3rd of March and the Holi fell on the 5th and 6th of March. On the 4th of March the Plaintiffs came to Sitapur to file an application against Danish Ali Respondent, and on that day Danish Ali made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against thesis four that proceedings should be taken against them u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, because there was danger of a breach of the peace. Owing to the religious festivals in Biswan the Magistrate thought fit to issue an order to the four Plaintiffs-Appellants to furnish security u/s 117, Code of Criminal Procedure Two of them Abu Mohammad and Nasir Ahmad were unable to give security and they were therefore put in the lockup. The Defendant's case was that he made the report for action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure because he had reason to believe that the Plaintiffs had come to take Muslim League volunteers for the purpose of picketing, The Plaintiffs' case was that the Defendant got the Magistrate to issue orders u/s 117, Code of Criminal Procedure merely as a counter-blast to their complaint against him for demolishing the "chabutra". The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the action taken by the Sub-Inspector was not without reasonable and probable cause and the Sub-Inspector had no malicious intention in making the report. These findings are attacked by the Appellants in this appeal. The main arguments are that the Sub-Inspector himself admits that it only occurred to him to make the report for action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure on the 4th of March when he saw the Plaintiffs in the Court compound. Counsel argues that this means that he did not think action necessary until he saw that the Plaintiffs had come to make an application against him. Counsel argues that this means that he did not think action necessary until he saw that the Plaintiffs had come to make an application against him. Furthermore, as to reasonable and probable cause, Counsel says that picketing does not amount to a breach of the peace, and if the Sub-Inspector knew that the Plaintiffs had come to take volunteers only for the purpose of picketing, this would not be reasonable and probable cause for his report for action u/s 107. I do not agree with either of these arguments. The Sub-Inspector knowing that there might be trouble from the Plaintiffs during the Holi and seeing the Plaintiffs in the Court compound, naturally tried to nip that trouble in the bud. The coincidence does not, to my mind, imply a malicious intention. Picketing is not always peaceful and frequently leads to serious riots. Therefore Counsel has not succeeded in making out that the action of the Sub-Inspector was without reasonable and probable cause. 2. The findings of the lower appellate Court on both these points are against the Appellants. Both these questions are of fact. In Rughnath Kewaji v. Teja AIR 1936 Sind 133 it is held that the question of malice is a pure question of fact. In Mahadeo Prasad v. Chunni Lal AIR 1925 Oadh 359 it is held that the existence of reasonable and probable cause is a question of fact. This second appeal is therefore directed against questions of fact only and cannot succeed. 3. I dismiss it with costs.