JUDGMENT : Muhammad Rafiq, J. The two applicants Gopal Singh and Sukhnandan Singh were convicted under section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 of the offence of obstructing two public servants in the discharge of their duties. The applicants challenge their conviction and deny their guilt. It appears that, one Raghunandan Singh was wanted on a charge of cheating by the Bombay Police and a warrant for his arrest was issued to the Sub-Inspector, Baragaon, in whose circle the village of Raghunandan Singh was situate. The Sub-Inspector ordered his subordinate constables to be on the look-out for Raghunandan Singh and to arrest him wherever found. Sarju Singh constable, with a chaukidar, came across Raghunandan Singh and proceeded to arrest him, informing him at the same time that a warrant had been issued by the Bombay Police under which he (Raghunandan Singh) was wanted. Raghunandan Singh called for help when Sarju Singh attempted to arrest him. The two applicants came up, interfered with and assaulted Sarju Singh and the chaukidar, and managed to prevent the arrest of Raghunandan Singh. On the report of the constable both the applicants were sent up for trial on a charge under section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 and were convicted. They preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge of Benares and their appeal was dismissed. They have come up in revision to this Court. It is contended on their behalf that the constable and the chaukidar were not doing their duty when attempting to arrest Raghunandan Singh because neither the constable nor the chaukidar had the warrant of arrest with him. The ruling in Queen Empress v. Dalip, (1896) I.L.R., 18 All., 246 was cited in support of this contention. The second contention is that the conviction under section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 is not maintainable, inasmuch as the interference was made when the constable and the chaukidar were not occupied in the discharge of their duty. Both contentions are in my opinion unsound. The second contention depends on the first. Under section 54, clause (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure every police officer is empowered to arrest, without a warrant, a person who has committed a cognizable offence on suspicion or credible information of the commission of the offence. Both contentions are in my opinion unsound. The second contention depends on the first. Under section 54, clause (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure every police officer is empowered to arrest, without a warrant, a person who has committed a cognizable offence on suspicion or credible information of the commission of the offence. The constable had information of the offence committed by Raghunandan Singh through the warrant issued by the Bombay Police, and such information may well be described as credible information. The case relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants does not apply, as the offence in the case was not a cognizable offence. I think that the constable and the chaukidar were within their rights and were discharging their duty in their attempt to arrest Raghunandan Singh, and if in the discharge of their duties they were obstructed by the applicants, the offence of the latter falls under section 353 of the Penal Code, 1860. The application fails and is rejected.