Bapna, J.—This is a revision by four accused, Nandsingh, Gurudeo-singh, Mt. Nihal Kaur and Mt. Nand Kaur against their convictions and sentences. 2. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, convicted the first two accused under section 324 I. P.C. and sentenced them to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-; the latter two were convicted under: section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, maintained the conviction and sentences of accused Nandsingh and Gurudeosingh. As regards Mt. Nihal Kaur and Mt. Nand Kaur, the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to payment of fine only. All the four accused have come up in revision. 3. The case for the prosecution is that one Thamban Singh had a decree for recovery of money against Nand Singh and in execution thereof a warrant of attachment of a cart belonging to the judgment-debtor was issued by the court of Munsif Karanpur on 25th of March 1949 returnable on 8tb of April 1949. One Shivnarain P.W. 4, Sawar of the court went to the residence of Nandsingh accompanied by Thambansingh, Lalsingh & Jarnailsingh as Motbir. The cart was attached by Shivnarain and made over to Thamban Singh to be carried away and Jarnail-singh wanted to yoke the bullocks when Mst. Nand Kaur and Mst, Nihal Kaur assaulted Thambansingh, Lal-singh and Jarnailsingh. Nandsingh and Gurudeosingh also came up and assaulted them causing several injuries. The report was made by Lalsingh, another son of Thambansingh at Police Station Karanpur and the four accused were challaned and sentenced as afore-said. It may be observed that Gurudeosingh is the son of Nandsingh, Mst. Nand Kaur is sister of Nandsingh and Mst. Nihal Kaur is the wife of Nandsingh. Two other persons, Mst. Meeran and Sarjit Kaur were also challaned but were acquitted. 4. The only point urged in this revision is that the warrant of attachment was illegal and, therefore, the four accused petitioners had committed no offence in resisting execution and in committing the alleged assault in order to save their property from wrongful attachment. It appears from a perusal of the warrant that it does not contain the name of the officer or person to whom it was addressed or delivered for execution. The space kept for insertion of the name is blank. It appears from a perusal of the warrant that it does not contain the name of the officer or person to whom it was addressed or delivered for execution. The space kept for insertion of the name is blank. Under Order 21 rule 24 (2), it is laid down that every process of attachment shall bear date, the day on which it is issued and shall be signed by the judge or such officer as the court may appoint in this behalf and shall be sealed with the seal of the court, and delivered to the proper officer, to be executed. The learned Government Advocate contends that the rule only contemplates delivery of the warrant to an officer whose duty it is to execute and omission to mention the name of the officer in the warrant to whom it was delivered for execution does not make the warrant illegal. In my opinion, while the rule lays down that the warrant is to be delivered to the proper officer for execution, it contemplates that the name of such officer whether by his personal name or by designation should be entered in the warrant as otherwise it will be impossible for the judgment-debtor to know whether the person who has brought the warrant authority to execute it. It is apparent that if the warrant is not endorsed for execution to any person whether by personal name or as holder of post, any person who may steal the warrant or may find the warrant could purport to act under the same. It has been held in 1942 Patna 480(1) that the person to whom the warrant of attachment is addressed must be named on the face of the warrant and that where a warrant is incomplete in this respect, no legal attachment can be effected under it. In this case reliance was placed on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in 1932 All. 692(2). That case actually related to a case of arrest under a warrant but it was held that a warrant must be issued to some person for execution and where no name or description of that person was given in the warrant, the warrant was illegal. In 1942 Oudh 256(3), warrants were issued by an Assistant Collector authorising a Kurk Amin to execute them. In 1942 Oudh 256(3), warrants were issued by an Assistant Collector authorising a Kurk Amin to execute them. The Kurk Amin returned the warrants with the report of his inability to execute on account of resistance by the defaulters. The Naib Tehsildar took assistance from police and attached certain cattle but as they were being taken away, there was a fight between officials on the one side and the persons trying to recover the cattle on the other. The persons who rescued the cattle were prosecuted and convicted by the Magistrate but on revision Bennett J. held that although the Naib Tehsildar may have acted with the best of intentions, he would have seen at once on examination of the warrant that it was the Kurk Amin and not himself who was authorised to execute it and, therefore, he had no lawful authority to attach the cattle and the accused were acquitted on the plea of the right of private defence of property. The learned Sessions Judge in dealing with this aspect of the case has observed that the warrant was perfectly valid as all warrants are addressed to the officer and he passes them on to process-server and so the execution of warrant by process-server, although his name is not mentioned, is not illegal. He relied on 1927 Lahore 351. This decision is, however, a very short one. In the opening part of the judgment it is mentioned that no argument was addressed that the warrant was illegal and that it was further observed that even if the warrant was defective, the accused had no justification for beating the process-server Ramlal who was acting in good faith under colour of his office. Reference was made to section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge in the present case has also observed that the omission to mention the name of the process-server was at the most an irregularity. In the present case, not only the name of the process-server is not mentioned but the name of the Nazir whether personally or by virtue of his office is also not mentioned. As held in the Patna, Allahabad and Oudh cases referred to above, such a warrant is illegal. 5. In the present case, not only the name of the process-server is not mentioned but the name of the Nazir whether personally or by virtue of his office is also not mentioned. As held in the Patna, Allahabad and Oudh cases referred to above, such a warrant is illegal. 5. It was argued by Government Advocate that even if the warrant was illegal, the plea of right of private defence of property mentioned in section 97 of the Penal Code is subject to the restrictions contained in section 99 and section 99 lays down that there is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. The important words in the paragraph are however, "in good faith". According to the definition of "good faith" mentioned in section 52, "Nothing is said to be done in "good faith" which is done without due care and attention." Now, it is obvious that if the process server or the officer through whom he may have got the process had perused the warrant, it would have been quite clear that it was not addressed to any person and therefore, the act of executing the warrant clearly lacked due care and attention. In my opinion, the last words, "though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law" only protects defects in minor particulars but does not cover cases like the present one where the person executing the warrant was not authorized to act. The resistance to the execution of the warrant was in the present case thus covered by the plea of right of private defence of property. The conviction and sentence passed on the accused are therefore set aside, the fine if paid will be refunded. The bail bonds of the two accused Nandsingh and Guru-deosingh are hereby cancelled.