JUDGMENT

Nanavautty, J - This is an application for revision of an appellate order of the-learned Sessions Judge of Sitapur, upholding the conviction and sentence of the applicants under Sections 147, 323 and 296, I.P.C., but reducing the sentence from three months' rigorous imprisonment to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment under each charge. The facts as found by the lower appellate Court are briefly as follows:

2. There was a dispute between certain Hindus and Mahomedans regarding the carrying of tazias through a privata grove in village of Bhagotipore on the tenth day of Moharam. The grove belonged to the Kampore Mathra estate under the management of the Court of Wards and the Court of Wards had let out this grove to Nankan Brahman for a year. Anticipating trouble the officer in charge of the police station Thangaon persuaded Nankan Brahman to let the tazias pass through his grove and to fill up the ditches and to level them. The tazias were thus allowed to proceed along the grove when some Hindus ordered the tazias to be taken back. There upon a riot took place between the Hindus and Mahomedans and ultimately the applicants were prosecuted and convicted for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 296, I.P.C. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that on the facts as found by the lower appellate Court no offence under Section 296, I.P.C., has been committed. The learned Assistant Government Advocate invites the attention of the Court to a ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in Masit v. Emperor, (1911) 34 All 78 and contends that upon the facts found proved by the lower appellate Court the offence under Section 296, I.P.C., has been made out. The ruling cited by the learned Assistant Government Advocate is, in my opinion, not apposite to the facts of the present case. There, in the Allahabad case, certain Lodhas, with the sanction of the public authorities, were carrying flags to a temple in procession along a public street and were attacked by certain persons whose acts were held to constitute a disturbance of the performance of a religious ceremony punishable under Section 296, I.P.C.

3. In the present case the facts are very different. The tazia procession was passing through a private grove belonging to a Brahman who had leased it from the Courts of Wards. Permission had been given by the grove holder Nankan to take the procession through the grove but it would seem from the finding of the lower appellate Court that somehow or other friction arose between the Hindus stud Mahomedans and the tazia procession was stopped and a fight ensued. The Mahomedans have not shown that they had any right to take these tizias through the private grove. No civil Court decree has been filed in the present case to establish the right of way of the Mahomedans to take theis procession through this grove, and it seems to me that Nankan had the right at any moment to withdraw the permission that he had granted under pressure from the thanadar to the Mahomedans to take the procession through his grove. In my opinion upon the facts found as proved by the lower appellate Court no offence under Section 296, I.P.C., has been clearly established. I would therefore allow this application for revision to this extent: that I would set aside the conviction and sentence passed upon the applicants in respect of Section 296, I.P.C., and I uphold their conviction for offences under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C., and re-duce the sentence in respect of each of them to the terms of imprisonment already undergone. The applicants will be released at once. To this extent this application for revision is allowed.