ORDER :- The applicants are the same in both the cases and were convicted by the Magistrate under Section 143 read with Section 426 (and 109 I. P. C. which was really unnecessary) for demonstrations of removing the English writings on certain public sign-boards belonging to Government with a view of writing Hindi legends in their place. This was part of what they called the "Angreji hatao movement" with the slogans "Socialist party zindabad;" "Doctor Lohia zindabad"; "Angreji hatao"; "Yen sarkar nikammi hai". Their convictions relate to two demonstrations for which they had pleaded guilty and had been convicted and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. The appeals being unsuccessful they have now come in revision. 2. An attempt was made to show that only those who actually tarred the old boards and tried to write some new legends could be convicted and not those who stood by. The test does not consist of these acts only, but either the actual commission, or membership of an assembly of more than five actuated by the same common object. In this context, everybody who was in the assembly and either did these acts or shouted the slogans in particular, "Angreji hatao" would be guilty as the fatter would show the privity to the common object. 3. The sheet anchor of the applicant's case here is that the common object was not unlawful. It was to blot out the English writing and to substitute if possible, a Hindi writing. This is not mischief as the boards had not suffered any decrease in their utility. English is not read by a large majority of people in that locality and the removal of English and substitution by Hindi made the boards really more useful. So, there was no unlawful common object and as such, the convictions cannot be supported. This over ingenious argument overlooks the basic fact which is of course found and not disputed that the owner and the persons in whose charge the owner had left the boards, did not want the change and objected to it. The members of the assembly were trying to thrust their notions of utility on the owner who for his part was not at all satisfied that the change sought to be effected was adding to the utility and on the contrary was sure that it was being seriously dismissed (diminished ?). The members of the assembly were trying to thrust their notions of utility on the owner who for his part was not at all satisfied that the change sought to be effected was adding to the utility and on the contrary was sure that it was being seriously dismissed (diminished ?). Certainly the owner or possessor is entitled to his notion of utility of his goods and nobody can force his ideas of utility on others by taking their property from them and altering in a manner which they disapprove. If the applicants' thesis is approved, anybody can just take the board, wipe out what is written there and write in whatever script he pleases and assert that he is making it more useful as he conceives it. It is certainly another matter if the owner himself effects the change or approves of others making it. But that is not the position here. Utility for the purposes of Section 425, I. P. C. is utility as conceived by the owner and not utility as conceived by the accused. 4. The accused themselves have pleaded guilty to the facts and did not show repentance or readiness to desist. The sentences, if anything, are quite lenient. 5. These applications in revision are therefore dismissed summarily.