1. It is contended that because the lower Appellate Court observed in the judgment, 'with regard to possession the balance of evidence appears to be in favour of the appellants,' this was tantamount to a finding that the appellants were in possession at the date of the offence. I think the Deputy Magistrate was possibly referring only to the probability of the crop having been grown by the appellants.
2. It is unquestionable that when the appellants came in an armed body and attempted to prevent the respondents' party from cutting and carrying away the produce, actual possession must have been with the respondents' party. In this respect the facts differ form those to which the law as to the right of persons in possession to maintain their actual enjoyment undisturbed was applied int the decisions reported as Ram Khelawan Singh v. Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 96 : 13 C.W.N. 827 and Silajit Mahoto v. Emperor 4 Ind. Cas. 19. The view taken by the Sub-Magistrate in paragraph No. 10 of his judgment is sound and the convictions so far as they have been upheld in appeal were correct.
3. The order of the Appellate Court requiring the appellants to give security for keeping the peace appears to be now unnecessary, since place in enjoyment of the land. I direct it to be set aside. In other respect the petition is dismissed.