JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - The applicants have been convicted under Sections 147 arid 353/149 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The sentence of imprisonment has been made consecutive. 2. It appears that one Srimati Ramkali was arrested in execution of a warrant in a case u/s 498, I.P.C. After her arrest she was forcibly rescued by the applicants. The applicants denied that they had committed the offence. Both the courts below after considering the evidence produced before them were satisfied that Srimati Ramkali had been arrested under a legal warrant and that she was forcibly rescued by the applicants. Accordingly they convicted and sentenced them. 3. It was contended before me on behalf of the applicants that the arrest was illegal as the learned Magistrate who issued the warrant did not mention the reasons for issuing it as required u/s 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on account of this fact there was no legal arrest of Srimati Ramkali and even if the applicants had rescued her they had not committed any offence. The question for consideration is whether the failure of the Magistrate in giving the reasons for the issue of the warrant instead of a summons makes the warrant illegal and inexecutable or whether it is a mere irregularity and does not affect the validity of the warrant and the arrest under it. 4. It was held in Mahar Singh and Ors. v. Emp. 18 A.L.J. 1149 that the omission of the Magistrate to record the reasons for the issue of a warrant in the first instance instead of a summons amounted to a mere irregularity and not to an illegality and did not vitiate the legality of the conviction of persons who had forcibly rescued the woman from the custody of the constables who had arrested her under the warrant. In this case also the warrant was issued for the attendance of the abducted woman in a case u/s 498, I.P.C. and after her arrest she was forcibly rescued by the accused. The Magistrate who issued the warrant did not record the reasons for issuing it in lieu of the summons. It was held that it was a mere irregularity and did not affect the conviction of the accused. 5. In Emperor v. Lachhmi Narain and Ors. The Magistrate who issued the warrant did not record the reasons for issuing it in lieu of the summons. It was held that it was a mere irregularity and did not affect the conviction of the accused. 5. In Emperor v. Lachhmi Narain and Ors. 1939 A.W.R. (H.C.) 63 it was held by A)[sop, J. that there was nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure Which says that a warrant issued u/s 90 to a person who was charged with a bailable offence should contain an endorsement u/s 76 of the Code and if there was no such endorsement the arrest in execution of that warrant could not be said to be illegal. In this case the accused were convicted under Sections 147, 353 and 225, I.P.C. on the ground that they had forcibly rescued one Kaley from the custody of police constables who had arrested him in execution of a warrant issued by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates in a case under Sections 323 and 426 I.P.C. It was contended that the arrest was illegal and the accused even if they had rescued Kaley had not committed any offence. The ground on which this contention was based was that the warrant which had been issued did not contain any endorsement as required u/s 76, Code of Criminal Procedure and as such was an illegal warrant incapable of execution. This contention was not accepted and the conviction and sentence of the accused was maintained. 6. In the case of Government of Assam v. Sahebullah ILR 51 Cal. 1 it was held that the warrant of arrest which had been issued u/s 90 Code of Criminal Procedure did not become invalid simply because the Magistrate who issued the warrant had not recorded the reasons for issuing it instead of the summons and the arrest in execution of the warrant was a legal arrest. 7. In view of the above decisions I am of opinion that the contention on behalf of the applicants that the warrant was illegal because it did not contain the reasons for issuing it has no force. 8. The next contention on behalf of the applicants is that they could not be convicted both u/s 147 and Section 353, I.P.C. In my opinion this contention too has not much force. 8. The next contention on behalf of the applicants is that they could not be convicted both u/s 147 and Section 353, I.P.C. In my opinion this contention too has not much force. If the acts committed by the applicants constitute different offences there does not appear any reason why they cannot be prosecuted for each of these offences. 9. In the circumstances the application is rejected. 10. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused.