JUDGMENT Dillon, J.
1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur convicting the nine petitioners under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to two months rigorous imprisonment each. The District Magistrate also passed an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing that all the accused at the expiration of their respective sentences should execute a bond to keep the peace for one year in their own recognizance for Rs. 200 with two sureties of Rs. 100 each. The facts which gave rise to this conviction are these: On or about the 5th of April last, which was the chehlum, that is, the 40th day of the Mohurram, the qasais and sikligars of Shahjahanpur started with tazias for the local karbala. A police order had been issued that day that all the tazia processions should arrive at Ajan Chauki by 7 P.M. so as to arrive at the karbala at 10 P.M. AS a matter of fact the qasais and sikligara did not start from the Chauki till 10 P.M. At the Chauki a dispute arose between the qasais and sikligars as to which of them should go first. They were repeatedly ordered to move on, but instead of doing so, they proceeded to wrangle and abuse each other, and it was with the greatest difficulty that they were ultimately got to move on. Similarly when the two parties had arrived at the karbala a dispute arose as to which tazia should go first. The tazias were however buried by 2 A.M. and the nine petitioners and a 10th man who has not applied for revision were arrested under the orders of Pandit Jagmohan Nath, Deputy Magistrate, and were charged on these foots with "giving provocation by wantonly doing an illegal act knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of riot to be committed." The District Magistrate holds that the petitioners' action in refusing to move on with their tazias when ordered to do so and wrangling on the question of precedence was calculated to cause a serious riot. In this view I entirely agree. It has been argued before me that the accused committed no offence under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, as they did not "malignantly or wantonly" refuse to move on. It is not the case for the prosecution that they acted malignantly and the word "wantonly" as used in the section merely means "recklessly." I think that the evidence and the finding clearly show that the petitioners acted recklessly in refusing to move on when ordered to do so, and that they, in wrangling and abusing each other when they were all in an extremely excited condition and armed with lathis, acted wantonly within the meaning of Section 158 of the Indian Penal Code. I think that these convictions must be affirmed. With regard to the order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not think that the offence of which the petitioners have been convicted would bring them within the purview of that section. I therefore set aside that order. As to the sentences passed, I think that the imprisonment already undergone by the nine petitioners is sufficient to meet the bonds of justice. I therefore remit the remaining portion of their sentences. Although Altaf Mian has not applied to this Court in revision, as I have the record before me I proceed to deal with his case also. I direct that he suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months in lieu of the sentence which was passed upon him by the District Magistrate. In his case also the order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is set aside. Subject to these modifications the application of the nine petitioners before me is rejected.