ORDER S.D. Khare, J. - This is an appli(Sic)n in revision directed against (Sic) order dated 8-11-1963 passed (Sic)he learned Sessions Judge of (Sic)npur at Varanasi, dismissing an appeal filed by the present applicants against their convincing and sentence under Sections 224 and 225 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that on 1-6-1962, a warrant of arrest, proclamation and a warrant of attachment of property issued under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Officer Patti at Pratapgarh were received at the police station Bhadohi with regard to Babu Nandan, applicant. On 2-6-1962 Sri Ram Bahadur Tewari, S.O., P.S. Bhadohi accompanied by certain constables went to village Lalika-Pura where Babu Nandan lived and tried to effect the arrest of Babu Nandan. However the latter protested and a scuffle followed. Ram Siromani, applicant, also joined Babu Nandan with the result that Bahuf Nandan escaped from police custody. Babu Nandan was prosecuted u/s 224 of the IPC while Ram Siromani and one Surajman, since dead, were prosecuted u/s 225 of the IPC. The Magistrate believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced both the applicants and sentenced each of them to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed. 3. It has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the warrant of arrest which was being executed against Babu Nandan was illegal and not in proper form and, therefore, no offence was committed either by Babu Nandan u/s 224 of the IPC or by Ram Siromani u/s 225 of the IPC. The warrant of arrest issued by the Judicial Officer Patti at Pratapgarh bears his signature and the seal of the court. It also mentions the name of the person who was to be arrested but the column meant for the name of the person who was to execute the warrant was left blank. 4. Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: 83. It also mentions the name of the person who was to be arrested but the column meant for the name of the person who was to execute the warrant was left blank. 4. Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: 83. (1) When a warrant is to be executed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, such Court may, instead of directing such warrant to a police officer, forward the same by post or otherwise to any Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police in a presidency town within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed. (2) The Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner to whom such warrant is so forwarded shall endorse his name thereon and, if practicable, cause it to be executed in manner hereinbefore provided within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the execution of a warrant directed to a police officer. It reads as follows: 84(1). When a warrant directed to a police officer is to be executed beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it for endorsement either to a Magistrate or to a police officer not below the rank oi an officer in charge of a station, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed. (2) Such Magistrate or police officer shall endorse his name thereon and such endorsement shall be sufficient authority to the police officer to whom the warrant is directed to execute the same within such limits, and the local police shall, if so required, assist such officer in executing such warrant. (3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by obtaining the endorsement of the Magistrate or police officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed will prevent such execution, the police officer to whom it is directed may execute the same without such endorsement in any place beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which issued it. 5. In the present case the warrant of arrest was issued by the Judicial Officer in the district of Pratapgarh but the name and designation of the person who was to execute it was not mentioned. 5. In the present case the warrant of arrest was issued by the Judicial Officer in the district of Pratapgarh but the name and designation of the person who was to execute it was not mentioned. In other respects it complied with the provisions of Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Form 2 in Schedule v. of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the name and designation of the person or persons who is or are to execute the warrant has got to be mentioned in the body of the warrant itself. The warrant of arrest issued to the P.S. Bhaddhi was in Form 2 Schedule v. but as stated already, the column which provided for the name or designation of the person who was to execute the warrant was left blank. It is in these circumstances that it has been contended that the said warrant of arrest was defective. Reliance has been placed on the case of Fattu and Others Vs. Emperor . It was held in that case: A warrant must be issued to some person for execution and where no name or description of that person is given in the warrant, the person arrested can have no knowledge that the persons who present the warrant are legally authorised to do so. It is immaterial that the person who is arrested is unable to read the warrant and has no knowledge as to whether the warrant is or is not properly filled up but it is the duty of the Court to issue a warrant in proper form, and where a warrant is incomplete the subsequent release of a person arrested under such a warrant is not an offence u/s 225B of the IPC. 7. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that an error or omission in a warrant could be cured u/s 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention. Where the legality of a warrant is the basis for the prosecution and is challenged it cannot be considered to be a mere irregularity within the meaning of Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The result is that the revision application succeeds. The conviction and sentence of Babu Nandan u/s 224 IPC and that of Ram Siromani u/s 225 of the IPC are set aside. 8. The result is that the revision application succeeds. The conviction and sentence of Babu Nandan u/s 224 IPC and that of Ram Siromani u/s 225 of the IPC are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.