Sundaram Chetty, J.
1. As the matter now stands, after all the elaborate process in connexion with this case of rioting in both the lower Courts has been gone through, the question had reduced itself to a simple one. The petitioners who are five of the accused are the only relics of those convicted by the first Court, and the question is, whether in the face of the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal, even the conviction Under Section 147, I. P. C., in respect of the petitioners is legally sustainable. In order to punish them for rioting, it is not enough to show that they were members of an unlawful assembly, but it should also be made out that force or violence was used by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly. The specific acts of violence attributed to them have been disbelieved by the learned Judge, and the rest of the accused have all been acquitted. In the absence of proof of one of the elements necessary to constitute rioting, their conviction Under Section 147 seems to be irregular. But there is no difficulty upon the evidence, in finding them guilty Under Section 143, (the minor offence), as having been members of an unlawful assembly.
2. There was doubtless show of criminal offence within the meaning of Clause 1, Section 141, I. P. C. I set aside the conviction Under Section 147, and alter it to one Under Section 143, I. P. C. In view of this alteration, I would reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on each, to the term already undergone (which is very short) and impose on each of the petitioners a fine of Rs. 50 (Rupees fifty only). In default of payment of the fine each of the petitioners should undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The order Under Section 106, Criminal P. C., stands cancelled.