ORDER Stuart, J. - In this case Enayat Chaukidar, Gokal, Lokman and Nandan Lal were charged with offences under sections 225(b) and 323 I. P.C. The case for the prosecution was that two constables Bhagwandas and Mohammed Rafiq were deputed on the 30th March, 1922 to arrest one Musammat Ram Piari in connection with a case u/s 498 I.P.C. A warrant for her arrest had been issued by the Court of the Bench Magistrates of Bilari. Musammat Ram Piari was found in the house of the accused Lokman and was arrested whereupon the other accused came up, tore up the warrant, seized the constables and rescued the woman. The learned Magistrate has convicted the accused u/s 323 I.P.C. only and has sentenced Enayat Chaukidar to one month's rigorous imprisonment and the other three accused to a fine of Rs. 50 each. He found that the warrant under which the arrest of the woman was made was not legally issued and consequently no offence u/s 225(b) was proved. The accused come up in revision. It is pointed out with reason that the arrest of the woman being illegal the accused were technically justified in rescuing her. Further there is no evidence whatever on the record to show that the offence of causing hurt was committed. What the evidence shows is that the constables were seized and that a scuffle took place. There is nothing to show that any bodily pain, disease or infirmity was caused to anybody or that any act was done with the intention of doing so. This being so I think that the applicants have been wrongly convicted. The record will be submitted to the Hon'ble High Court with the recommendation that the conviction be set aside. 2. I do not agree with the learned Sessions Judge that no offence was committed. Upon the facts the four persons convicted clearly used criminal force. I am not disposed to go out of my way to find technical excuses for persons who use criminal force towards constables acting honestly within the scope of their authority. The circumstance, that the warrant which they were endeavouring to execute contained a technical defect, which the constables could not possibly have any idea of, would affect the case only this much that it renders the persons convicted not guilty of more serious offence. They have already been found not guilty of that offence. The circumstance, that the warrant which they were endeavouring to execute contained a technical defect, which the constables could not possibly have any idea of, would affect the case only this much that it renders the persons convicted not guilty of more serious offence. They have already been found not guilty of that offence. The position of the constables was that they had to obey orders. The persons convicted had not the vaguest idea that the warrant contained a technical defect but used criminal force to prevent the warrant being executed, I change the convictions from section 323 to convictions u/s 352 and uphold the sentences. If Enayat has been released on bail he will surrender to his bail and serve the remainder of his sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment.