JUDGMENT Yorke, J. - This is an application in revision by one Debey Ram Shankar who has been bound over u/s 107 by a Magistrate of the Farrukhabad district. 2. The case for the prosecution put very shortly is that there were two parties in the town of Chhibramau, the leaders of which were, on the one side, Tewari Radhey Govind and, on the other, Dubey Ram Shankar. It was said that there was bitter enimity between the two parries, that there had been acts involving breaches of the peace in the past and that there was a serious apprehension of a breach of the peace from both parties in future. Notices were accordingly issud not only to the applicant and some other members of his party bat also to the members or Tewari Radhey Govind's party, and members of both parties were ultimately bound over. In the present application the point taken is "that on the Court's own finding that the applicant himself has not committed any act of violence and is not likely to commit any act of violence or disturb the public tranquility, no case has been made out u/s 107, Cr. P. C, and the Courts below have erred in law in demanding security from the applicant." Now it is perfectly true that the learned Sessions Judge who dealt with the appeals of both parties in a single omnibus judgtment, al though he dealt with the details of each case separately, remarked at the end of his judgment: The two leaders of the parties must be bound down though they themselves have not committed any act of violence and are not likely to commit any act of violence of disturb the public tranquility. But they are the ring leaders and while remaining behind the scene they instigete their birelings to commit breach of the peace; it means that he does a wrongful fact likely to commit breach of the peace. Therefore such ring leaders come within the purview of Section 107 Cr. P C. 3. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to refer a number of cases. The two leading cases so far as I am able to see on this point are the decision of Mr. Therefore such ring leaders come within the purview of Section 107 Cr. P C. 3. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to refer a number of cases. The two leading cases so far as I am able to see on this point are the decision of Mr. Justice Chamier in Jagat Narain v. King Emperor (1909) 7 A L J 1161 and the Lahore decision in Mohammad Abdul Qayam v. Tre(sic) Crown (1939) 20 Lah, 556, From the later case I will only take a few words from the held note which run as follows: It is the individual who is contemplated in the Section and it is the individual act that may be brought home to him The only case in which a person can be punished for the wrong done by others (that is here, be bound over since Section 107 does not involve punishment) is where he abels or instigates the the offence. Faring that, no person can be visited with any penalty for the acts done by others on whom he has no control and for whose conduct he cannot be held responsible. 4. Diferentially(sic) if there is any evidence that a person has contro over others and that he can be held responsible for their conduct and there is an apprehension of the peace from those persons, then such person can also be bound over. 5. The matter was dealt with a greater length in Jagat Narain,s case and the learned judge remarked: It is a comman and I think a proper practice to takes security from the leaders of opposing fractions that are shown to be likely to commit breachs of the peace. It is very often impossible to bind over all the members of two or more parties. But betore a person is bound over to keep the peace, it must be shown that he is himself likely to commit a breach of the peace or do a wrongful Act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. 6. Such an act, I suppose, would be the abetting or instigating to commit a breach of the peace by others. On the following page, 116, the learned judge remarked. 6. Such an act, I suppose, would be the abetting or instigating to commit a breach of the peace by others. On the following page, 116, the learned judge remarked. Having examined the evidence, I agree with the Sessions Jugde that it is not proved that the three person who have been bound over are likely to commit a breach of the peace themselves or that they are leaders of the two parties in the sense that they can control of others members of their respective parties. 7. Be concluded by referring to some evidence about which he remarked: This show that they have to real control over the party to which they belong and that they do not belong to the not bigoted section of that party. 8. In the light of these decision, it appears to be clear that although in the ordinary way the person who can be bound over u/s 107 is the individual from whom there is an actual apprehension of a breach of the peace, none the less it is clearly recognised that other persons who are behind the actual breakers of the peace as abetters or instigators, for example leaders or controller of a faction are persons in whose cases orders u/s 107 may properly be made on the view that they are persons who are likely to do a wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace. 9. The question then arises whether in the present case that is a proper conclusion in regard to the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge had held in clear terms that the applicant is a ring leader and I understand from the form of the finding that he is definitely of the view that the applicant is a person who has some control over the other members of his patry. I have glanced at the evidence. There is not a great deal of it, but there is something to show that he is the leader of one faction and I think the Courts below were justified in taking the view that he can exercise a degree of control over other members of his faction. In these circumstances, I think the order binding over the applicant was justified and was good in law. I therefore dismiss this application.