1. This Rule arises out of an unfortunate dispute betweentwo landlords in consequence of which, in a proceeding under sec. 145, an orderattaching the property has been passed under sec. 146, Cr. P. C., and aReceiver appointed. Unfortunately it appears that the Magistrate who appointedthe Receiver has omitted to give any direction as to how the property should bemanaged and still more unfortunately the tenants on both sides appear to be atloggerheads as regards the grazing rights over the property, but one thingappears to be admitted that the Zamindar of the present accused gave them thegrazing rights over this land, and that they objected to one Amjad Ali who wasa leading tenant of the rival Zamindar ploughing up a portion of the land overwhich they allege they have grazing rights, under colour of a lease from theReceiver. It appears to us that the Receiver should not have granted the leaseto Amjad Ali entitling him to cultivate the whole of this land without makingproper provision for the grazing rights. The trying Magistrate assumes that hedid make such provision, but it is clear from the judgment that he had beengiven no authority to make such provision and that he had not as a matter offact determined what the grazing rights were, to what extent they required theland and to what amount of land Amjad Ali might be entitled for cultivatingpurposes. The result is, as is too frequently the case in this country, thatthe peasants left to themselves and finding their grazing rights interferedwith fell out, but fortunately owing to the presence of the police on the spotno harm was done. But we think that it is not right that these cultivatorsshould be convicted of criminal trespass when they were asserting a right whichhad never been declared against them which they bond fide believed they had,and for the same reason we think that they cannot be said to have formed anunlawful assembly, because they went and protested against the land beingploughed up. The Receiver should now receive proper instructions from theMagistrate with regard to the management of the property attached, and whensuch instructions have been given, this Court, as has always been held, wouldnot interfere with such an order of management ; and if the orders are dulypromulgated and the raiyats know what their rights are under the Receiver andthen by show of force do anything contrary to the Receivers authority, therewould be ground for proceeding against them. But at present we think that thereis no such ground and that it would be extremely unfortunate to allow thisconviction to stand.

2. The conviction and sentence are therefore set aside andthe fine if paid will be refunded. The rule is made absolute.

.

Reajaddin Molla and Ors. vs. King-Emperor (13.02.1914 -CALHC)