1. This was a rule granted to show cause why a conviction should not be set aside on the ground that, assuming the facts found to be correct, the conviction was bad in law. We have had the advantage of hearing the arguments of the petitioner's Counsel, and it appears to us that, assuming the facts found to be correct, the conviction is good in law. The facts found are these: that there was no one in undisputed possession of the land in question, but that a dispute of some considerable standing existed between the two parties as to who was entitled to the land and who was in possession of it; that a number of persons of the petitioner's party went to sow the land, together with a body of men armed with latties; that they were prepared to use force, if necessary; and that they stationed these lattials to keep off the opposite party and these were brandishing their weapons, while the land was sowed. That falls within the definition of the offence, because there was an assembly for the purpose of enforcing a right by criminal force, or show of criminal force.
2. It was contended that this case was governed by the case of Shunker Singh v. Burmah Mahto 23 W.R. Cr. 25; but as was pointed out by the Judge in the appeal Court in this case, that case is distinguishable. It was decided on this ground that what was done there was an act justified by the sections relating to private defence, and it was expressly pointed out that it did not fall under Clause 3 of Section 99 of the Penal Code. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. In this case it appears that there was plenty of time to have recourse to the public authorities, therefore the law as to private defence does not apply.
3. This rule will be discharged.