JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. The four applicants, Bahal, Dwarka, Jhullan and Naipal, were convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of assaulting a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, and sentenced under the provisions of section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 to four months' rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge sustained the conviction. The sentence imposed on Bahal was maintained, the sentences imposed on the other accused were reduced to a term of two months each. It appears that on the 10th of November last a vaccinator, named Mohammad Nasir, went to the village in which the accused live. He saw a little boy of three years of age playing at the door of his father, the accused Bahal. Bahal was present at the time. The vaccinator says, “I seized him (the boy) and taking out my needle began to vaccinate him. Bahal was present at the door and caught hold of my hand. He broke the needle and threw it away.” The vaccinator announced his intention of insisting on the vaccination of the child. Thereupon Bahal and the other accused, who are his relations, are said to have assaulted and beaten the vaccinator. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the vaccinator received any special injury. I must express my surprise that on these facts the Courts below should have held that an offence under section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 was committed. The vaccinator was not acting in execution of his duty. It is no part of a vaccinator's duty to insist on vaccinating a child in opposition to the wishes of its parent or guardian. The vaccinator rendered himself liable to a charge of assaulting the child. The accused do not appear to me to have exceeded their rights of private defence. The view which I take is supported by the decision in Mangobind Muchi v. Empress,[1989] 3 C.W.N., 627 It is true that the accused Bahal had no right to break the vaccinator's needle and throw it away and his action in so doing might possibly constitute an offence under section 426 of the Penal Code, 1860. But as he had been for a month in prison, I do not deem it necessary to consider whether a conviction should be entered under that section. But as he had been for a month in prison, I do not deem it necessary to consider whether a conviction should be entered under that section. For the above reasons I quash the convictions of the applicants under section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence passed on them. I am informed that they have been released on bail under the order of this Court, dated the 22nd January, 1906. The result of the order now passed is that the bail is discharged, and the applicants need not surrender.