1. In this revision petition it is urged that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the defence evidence, or, more accurately, has confirmed the conviction of the petitioners on insufficient or no evidence. I have carefully considered the evidence on which the Sessions Judge's findings are based; and I cannot say there is no evidence to Support them. It is a question of inference from the evidence and, in my opinion, the Sessions Judge was entitled to draw an inference from it against the petitioners. It is admitted that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly under Section 141, but it is urged that the conviction for rioting under Section 146 cannot stand as no force or violence was used. A toddy shop was pulled down; and spaches of toddy trees of considerable value were cut and destroyed. True, there is no evidence of force being used to any other person; but, in my opinion, violence was certainly used; and I agree with the observations in Samaruddin v. Emperor 17 Ind. Cas. 565 : 40 C. 367 : 13 Cri. L.J. 821. I am also in agreement with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as to the common object of the unlawful assembly. It was to propagate the temperance campaign by such means as were in fact employed. It is not necessary to show that the petitioners were the actual persons responsible for the violence used, though there is evidence which might support such a position. In my opinion, the conviction is right and there is no ground to interfere with it in revision. As to Section 106, the argument is that, as the petitioners were not guilty of rioting but only of being members of an unlawful assembly, actual breach of the peace must be proved. There is no room for this contention if the petitioners were rightly convicted of rioting which is expressly provided for in Section 106. The order as to security is, therefore, right and this and the sentence are confirmed.