JUDGMENT 1. After perusing the judgment of the Deputy Magistrate which sets out the facts' more fully than in the Session Judge's judgment, and after considering the case of Bhai Lal Chowdhry v. Emperor 6 C. W. N 680 : s. c. I. L. R. 29 Cal. 417(1902), cited by the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, and the following cases cited by counsel for the Petitioners, viz., Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Nath Mukerjee I. L. R. 24 Cal. 320 (1897), Adhar Midday v. The Empress 5 C. W. N. 391 (1900) and Uma Charan Singh v. The. King-Emperor 6 C. W. W. 164 (1901), we are of opinion that the conviction under sec. 147 is valid. Though the Magistrate's order to the Police to take charge of the paddy pending proceedings under sec. 145, Cr. P. C, may not have been strictly lawful, the head constable and his party had done no injury to anybody and there was nothing in their action to justify the unprovoked attack upon them by an armed mob. The disputed paddy had been stored, and the Police did not propose to remove it but simply to guard it. That was an inoffensive act which did not justify recourse to armed violence especially as the Police acted in an open and straightforward manner, simply announcing what were the orders they had received. That the action of the Petitioners was intended to bo violently aggressive and not merely self-protective, is shown by the fact that they seized several men of the Police party and carried them off into confinement. In this view of the case we direct that the rule be discharged.