1. The eighteen petitioners before us have all been convicted of rioting and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. The first petitioner has also been convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. Three other petitioners have also been convicted of voluntarily causing simple hurt and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each. All the petitioners have also been bound down to keep the peace under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. This rule has been granted on two grounds. The first relates to the order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended that though the Courts below had legal power to pass such an order they did not exercise their discretion properly having regard to the facts of the case. In our opinion the facts of the case are such that they fully justify this order.
3. The second ground on which this rule was issued is that separate sentences upon four of the petitioners are illegal. In our opinion this point is clearly concluded by authority. It was held in the case of Ram Angutha Singh v. Emperor  40 Cal. 511, that separate sentences for the offence of rioting and hurt are legal when it is found that each person took an individual part in the assault. It has been found in this case that the four petitioners who have been separately convicted and sentenced for causing grievous hurt or simple hurt individually committed acts which made them liable under Sections 325 and 323, Indian Penal Code. This decision follows earlier decisions of this Court to the same effect. On behalf of the petitioners our attention has been drawn to a decision of a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party, Sarat Chandra Ghosh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 408. But that case is clearly distinguish-able on the ground that the offence for which separate punishment was awarded in addition to the punishment for rioting was one punishable under Section 225, Indian Penal Code and the common object of the unlawful assembly as charged was to commit that particular offence. Here the common object stated in the charge is not to cause hurt to any person but to rescue a buffalo. It is urged that there is reference to the use of force and violence in the charge. But this reference is independent of the common object. Under Section 146, Indian Penal Code the use of force or violence is a necessary ingredient of the offence of rioting. But we are unable to accept the contention that this fact renders the separate sentences on those who actually used force or violence illegal and as we have stated we are bound by the authority of previous decisions of this Court on this point. The rule is discharged. The petitioners who are on bail must now surrender to their bail and undergo the unexpired portion of their sentences.