1. I feel considerable difficulty in deciding this matter because both the subordinate Courts have gone wrong in certain particulars. They have differed in opinion. The trial Magistrate was of opinion that the opposite party should be bound over, while the appellate Court discharged the order of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has made the mistake so often commented upon by this Court of treating all the accused in a lump without discrimination and without an attempt to discover which of them was likely to commit a breach of the peace. After, reading the evidence I have not the slightest doubt that Sirajuddin is in some danger of being submitted to physical force by some of the Jats of his village. The difficulty exists in the confusion caused by the trial. Court treating all the accused persons as if they formed one single individual. The appellate Court has gone wrong in his opinion that to bind over persons it is not sufficient to prove a danger of the breach of the peace but further it must be proved that the accused were guilty of some overt act towards a breach of the peace. There is no such necessity and I emphatically disagree with any such opinion expressed by any High Court. The ruling referred to by the Sessions Court, Mathura Sahu v. Emperor  14 A.L.J. 769 is not available in this Court. Counsel for the opposite side has referred me to a Lahore ruling, Joti Sarup v. Emperor A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 689 in which such an opinion may be said to have been expressed by a Sessions Judge. There is no opinion of the High Court. The Sessions Judge's opinion is merely by the way as to the absence of any single overt act and no principle is laid down by the High Court. An overt act towards a breach of the peace would be a substantive offence to be dealt with under the Indian Penal Code.S. 107 is one appearing in a chapter devoted in the Criminal Procedure Code to the object of preventing a breach of the peace, and to prove the existence of circumstances which may lead a reasonable man to apprehend a breach of the peace It need not always be necessary to prove also an overt act towards a breach of the peace on behalf of any of the accused. The learned Judge has further expressed other opinions with which. I entirely disagree. He was of opinion that if the complainant was assaulted and beaten during the proceedings that would not be any evidence to bind over the opposite party because such evidence as existed at the time of the institution of the proceedings could only be used. This will be taking a very narrow view of criminal responsibility, and it is obvious that the learned Sessions Judge's mind was dwelling on circumstances which would be considered in a civil suit where a cause of action that accrued subsequent to the filing of the suit would not be noticed by a civil Court.
2. In a criminal case, if the accused persons, seeing proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C. against them pending, attempted to commit a breach of the peace such evidence would be the best evidence to prove their intention to commit a breach of the peace. I am thus in disagreement with the general view taken by both the subordinate Courts, and I have got to arrive at a decision independently on the evidence on the record. That evidence has satisfied me that though the mosque was built a long time ago there is friction at present between the complainant and the Jats over the taking out of some Hindu procession. Rightly or wrongly the complainant as Imam of the mosque objects to the procession, while the Jats appear to be keen on taking one out. There is an existing source of dispute. This was further proved by a dead pig, an animal suffering under particular contempt of the Mahomedans, being left in the mosque. There is certainly a danger of the breach of the peace, and that danger exists in reference to the complainant and is likely to proceed from the Jats of the village. My difficulty, however, is to discover the persons among the accused who are likely to commit such a breach. As I have already pointed out, the trial Court has treated the cases of all the opposite parties in a lump. The complainant has mentioned different persons at different times as bearing a grudge against him. So far as I can make out the only persons who are definitely mentioned out of the accused are Jaggu, Sheonath and Indar about whom he made a report to the police on 16th February 1926, (Ex. A-2). No doubt the report was made a long time ago, but the same dispute is still simmering. They are the only persons out of the accused about whom it could be definitely said that they are among those Jats who contemplate a breach of the peace. I cancel the order of the Sessions Judge with regard to Jaggu, Sheonath and Indar and restore the order of the Magistrate with regard to them. The bonds and sureties given by them shall again become operative. As to the rest, I do not find definite individual evidence against them and I dismiss the application for revision as regards them.