Judgment Mahapatra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the acquittal of ten persons who with another four persons were tried for the offence under sections 147, 353, 323 and 379 of the Penal Code in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate, 1st Class Gopalganj, in the district of Saran. By the judgment delivered on the 16th January, 1961, these ten persons were convicted under sections 147 and 353 of the Penal Code and were given one years rigorous imprisonment each on each of the two counts with a direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. They were acquitted of other charges. The remaining four persons were completely acquitted of all the charges. Against their conviction the ten respondents of this appeal preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge of Saran heard the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of all the accused persons under both the sections 147 and 353 of the Penal Code. The State has preferred the present appeal against their acquittal. 2. The prosecution case against the respondents was that on the 14th October, 1959 Mr. R. Raman, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise (P.W. 11) received a letter (Ext. 3) from the Collector of Central Excise to enquire about the smuggling of contraband tobacco within Barauni Range. He deputed P.W.s 8 and 12 to make preliminary enquiries. On the 16th October, Mr. Raman went to Gopalganj accompanied by an inspector (P.W. 1) on the 17th October he obtained several search warrants from the prescribed authority against various persons of different villages including respondents Adam Hussain and his son Abedin. Those search warrants were executed on the 18th October, on the 19th October, the Superintendent of Central Excise (P.W. 2) and an inspector (P.W. 3) arrived at Gopalganj and it was decided that further search should be undertaken. Some more search warrants were obtained, two of which were against persons in village Pipra and four for village Kamalpur. The two search warrants for Pipra were against respondents Sheikh Ali Raza and Md. Islam. Armed with those search warrants the excise party left Gopalganj for Kamalpur at 1 P.M. in a staff jeep. They executed some of the search warrants and came to village Pipra. P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 went to the house of respondent Adam Hussain but he was not present there. Islam. Armed with those search warrants the excise party left Gopalganj for Kamalpur at 1 P.M. in a staff jeep. They executed some of the search warrants and came to village Pipra. P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 went to the house of respondent Adam Hussain but he was not present there. They sent for him and his two sons Abedin and Mustaquim and also Ali Raza, respondents 1, 2, 4 and 7. Adam Hussain was asked to measure the stock of tobacco kept on the roof of his house. Thereupon he refused to do so and on an alarm raised by him a mob assembled there and began to assault the excise party. They left the place and took shelter in the jeep. The driver of the jeep was not there. He had gone away somewhere. One Rehmatulla tried to save the excise party and with his help and with the help of Suraj Dubey and Swainath Prasad the jeep was pushed up to Manjha where the injured persons were given first aid in the Manjha dispensary by the medical officer. On information given by the jeep driver who had reached Gopalganj earlier, the officer in charge of the police station came to Manjha and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 11), the Deputy Superintendent of Excise. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against 14 accused persons and they were put on trial with the result as stated above. The injured persons were sent to the Medical Officer, Gopalganj for examination of their injuries. 3. The accused persons did not deny that the officers were assaulted but their defence was that they did not assault the officers. They suggested in cross-examination of prosecution witness no. 1 that two girls were proceeding ahead of the jeep who did not clear the way when the horn was blown. When the driver stopped the jeep near them, the girl got frightened and ran towards the village. The excise officers also began to go towards the village in connection with their work and they were assaulted by the villagers under a wrong impression that they were trying to misbehave with the girls. The accused further said that they had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of their enemies. The excise officers also began to go towards the village in connection with their work and they were assaulted by the villagers under a wrong impression that they were trying to misbehave with the girls. The accused further said that they had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of their enemies. Apart from this general defence, respondents Taiyab Hussain, Ali Raza, Mobarak Hussain pleaded alibi saying that they were in the court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Gopalganj from 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence in connection with a case under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Rashid Mian, respondent no. 10, also took a plea of alibi that he was lying ill on that date at the house of his relation in village Ekma and was under treatment of the Medical Officer of Ekma Block. 4. The charge against all the respondents was that they were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, that is, to obstruct Shri R. Raman and other employees of the Central Excise Department in lawful discharge of their duty and to assault them, committed the offence of rioting punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged for having assaulted and used criminal force to Shri R. Raman, D.K. Bhattacharya, K.K. Pandey, B.N. Pandey, R.R. Prasad and P.B. Ghosh all public servants and employees of the Central Excise Department when they were discharging their duty as public servants. They were, therefore, charged under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The individual accused persons were also charged with the offence under section 323 in regard to assaults given by them to individual prosecution witnesses. 5. In trial court, as already stated, convicted the ten respondents of the present appeal for offences under sections 353 and 147 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them to one years rigorous imprisonment on each of the two counts. This conviction was set aside on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge on the view that the excise party had gone to the house of Adam Hussain to hold a search in his house without observing the requirements provided under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereby they were not discharging their official duties according to law. This conviction was set aside on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge on the view that the excise party had gone to the house of Adam Hussain to hold a search in his house without observing the requirements provided under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereby they were not discharging their official duties according to law. In that view the accused persons were justified in resisting and using the minimum force to prevent the illegal search. Learned Standing Counsel attacked this view and contended that search warrants were not necessary to be taken by the Central Excise party consisting of officers who had already been authorised under Rule 197 of the Central Excise Rules by the Collector of Central Excise to make search without a search warrant. It is true that no search warrant had been taken on the 20th October when the excise party went to village Pipra against respondent Adam Hussain or his sons. By a notification in the Gazette of India dated the 5th August 1953, the Collector of Central Excise had authorised all officers not below the rank of Inspector to exercise powers under Rule 197. By a notification in the Gazette of India dated the 5th August 1953, the Collector of Central Excise had authorised all officers not below the rank of Inspector to exercise powers under Rule 197. The Central Excise Rules were framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 6, 12 and 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Rule 197 provides : Any officer authorised in writing by the Collector in this behalf, shall have free access at all reasonable times to any premises licensed under these rules and to any place where excisable goods are grown, processed, stored, sold or manufactured....and may with or without notice to the owner inspect the building, the plant, the machinery, and the stocks and the accounts, and may at any time require the owner to furnish such information relating to the stocks as he may deem fit and make a physical check of such stocks and may at any time check the records made of the goods stocked in, or removed from the factory, warehouse or place, or their transfer within a factory to that part of the premises, if any, in which they are to be used for the manufacture of any other commodity, whether for the purpose of testing the accuracy of any return submitted under these Rules or of informing himself as to any particulars regarding which information is required for the purposes of the Act or these Rules. The scope of this rule is limited. Authorised officers not below the rank of Inspector are competent to have free access to any premises licensed or to any place where excisable goods are stored without any search warrant, but the purpose for which they can do such an act is stated in the last portion of the rule quoted above, and they are only for testing the accuracy of any return submitted by the person concerned under the Excise Rules or for getting the particulars regarding which information is required from the person concerned under the Act and the Rules. Beyond these two things if any search or inspection is to be made they are not covered by the authority given under Rule 197 by the Collector of the Central Excise to his prescribed subordinate officers. Beyond these two things if any search or inspection is to be made they are not covered by the authority given under Rule 197 by the Collector of the Central Excise to his prescribed subordinate officers. Rule 201 deals with powers to enter and search and provides : The Central Government may empower any officers of any department under its control to - (1) enter and search at any time by day or by night any land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance or other place upon or in which he has reason to believe that excisable goods, saltpetre or composition for match-heads or splints or veneers for the manufacture of matches are processed, sorted, stored, manufactured or carried in contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules. It was not contended by learned Counsel that any of the officers who formed the party on the date of occurrence had been authorised by the Central Government to carry out search as contemplated under rule 201. In that case search could only be conducted with search warrant. But assuming that such authority had been given to any of the officers of the excise party and no search warrant was necessary for effecting the search by him, the requirements under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were to be observed by such officer before he embarked upon the search. (See Section 18, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944). In the present case such requirements were not fulfilled. In that view if the excise party was intending to carry on a search in the premises of respondent no. 1 or his sons at village Pipra on the day of occurrence under rule 201, they were not within the bounds of law. Learned Standing Counsels contention was that their Act was not under rule 201 but under rule 197 in which case neither a previous search warrant nor compliance with section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary. 6. In order to determine whether the actions intended by the excise party were under rule 197 or 201, one has to look to the conditions preceding their action. 6. In order to determine whether the actions intended by the excise party were under rule 197 or 201, one has to look to the conditions preceding their action. In other words, whether they intended to check, inspect or search for the purpose of testing the occupancy or any return filed by respondent No. 1 or for collecting particulars in regard to informations which he was obliged to give under any of the provisions of the Act or rules. If neither of the two things was contemplated by them, they could not take advantage of rule 197. In this case the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent (P.W. 11) was that on the 18th of October, two days earlier than the date of occurrence he had checked, the stock of Adam Hussain, Abedin and others and found only minor irregularities and excess in stock. On the 19th October his Superintendent Mr. Ghosh and inspector Bhattacharya came and he had discussion with them following which he obtained six search warrants from the Sub-divisional officer on the 20th. None of them was against respondent no. 1 or his two sons. On reaching village Pipra they called respondent no. 1. When he and his sons and others came there, they were asked to measure the stock which were kept on the roof of Adam Hussains house and the dalan of Hadayat Mian. Learned Standing Counsel very much stressed upon this evidence and argued that for the purpose of further check in continuation of the check done on the 18th October and for the purpose of the inspection of the stock which was to verify the return that Adam Hussain had submitted, the party called upon him to give them free access to his premises. He contended that this would come within the scope of rule 197. But in cross examination the witness admitted that he had information that excess tobacco of Adam Hussain, Abedin had been kept in the premises of Ali Raza and Islam. So he had taken search warrants to search the premises of Ali Raza and Islam on the 20th. In his written report (Exhibit 4) given to the officer-in-charge of the Gopalganj police station on the 20th October, 1959, he stated that following information received at headquarters office by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna, Bihar, regarding large scale smuggling of tobacco in villages Manjha, Pipra, Phulbaria, Kamalpur etc. In his written report (Exhibit 4) given to the officer-in-charge of the Gopalganj police station on the 20th October, 1959, he stated that following information received at headquarters office by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna, Bihar, regarding large scale smuggling of tobacco in villages Manjha, Pipra, Phulbaria, Kamalpur etc. in Gopalganj in the district of Saran, he was deputed to conduct enquiry, raids and searches and he arrived at Gopalganj on the 16th October, 1959 with the party of preventive Inspectors. On the 18th search warrants against the licensees of Pipra were executed but as the desired result could not be achieved and excess contraband tobacco was reported to have been removed, the matter was kept under investigation for being pursued later on. On the 19th the preventive Inspector Sri B. N. Pandey, gathered further information that the licensee Adam Hussain and Abedin his son of village Pipra had secreted contraband tobacco, in large quantity in the house of Md. Islam and Ali Raza of Pipra, and therefore (P.W. 11) made arrangement for further house search through search warrants which were obtained from the Sub-divisional officer. From this it is abundantly clear that the search conducted by him and his party on the 18th in the premises of Adam Hussains house and his sons was not for the purpose of verifying the return filed by the licensees or for eliciting particulars in connection with information required under the Act or Rules, but purely for the purpose of checking if there had been any contravention of the provisions of law by them in keeping contraband tobacco in their premises. That was why search warrants were secured for conducting the search in their house. Obviously action was not taken under rule 197 but under rule 201. Because there was information that there had been much smuggling of contraband tobacco in that village, he was asked by the Collector of Excise to conduct an enquiry and search and he did so. This is a clear indication that there were reasons for him and his superior officers to believe that there had been some contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules by smuggling contraband tobacco and they wanted to enter and search the premises of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to find out what the position was and to detect the offence, if any. The very fact that P.W. 11 obtained search warrants not only on the previous days but also for the 20th October, against some villagers of Pipra where he suspected that respondent no. 1, Adam Hussain and his sons had kept their smuggled contraband tobacco is proof of their intention to take action under rule 201. 7. P.W. 2, the Superintendent of Central Excise said in his deposition that if the Deputy Superintendent (meaning P.W. 11) had not insisted upon search, there would have been no uproar at the time of the occurrence. P.W. 1, the Inspector of Central Excise, said that in October, 1959 a complaint was filed before him that contraband tobacco had been kept at village Pipra and other villages. On the 20th they started from Gopalganj for search along with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent and others. P.W. 3 another Inspector of Central Excise, also said that the Deputy Superintendent had told him that tobacco was concealed to the south of the mosque in village Pipra. P.W. 8 another Inspector, said that on the 20th October, 1959 he was in the detection party. All this evidence brought out clearly that the purpose for which the excise party went to the premises of Adam Hussain was for detection of contraband tobacco smuggled in contravention of the Act and rules. They were therefore, under the imperative duty of observing the requisites provided under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before they could conduct any search or inspection. Since they did not do so, their intended search was illegal and any obstruction offered to them by respondent No. 1 or his sons or others on his behalf would not amount to obstruction to a public servant in lawful discharge of his duty. The charge under section 353 of the Penal Code could not, therefore be made out against any of the respondents. 8. As for the charge under section 147 of the Penal Code against the respondents, learned Standing Counsel urged that the evidence disclosed that the respondents had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting P.W. 11 and others. Individual charge of assault against individual accused persons could not be established. But the evidence of Dr. 8. As for the charge under section 147 of the Penal Code against the respondents, learned Standing Counsel urged that the evidence disclosed that the respondents had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting P.W. 11 and others. Individual charge of assault against individual accused persons could not be established. But the evidence of Dr. Surendra Prasad, second medical officer, shows that there were injuries on Ramdeo Ojha (P.W. 5), R. Raman (P.W. 11), Radhika Raman Prasad (P.W. 8), D.K. Bhattacharya (P.W. 3), B.N. Pandey (P.W. 1), K.K. Pandey, (P.W. 4) and P.B. Ghosh (P.W. 2). In his opinion the injuries were caused either by lathi or by brick-bats. That the respondents were present at the occurrence is beyond any doubt. The charge framed against them disclosed the common object of the unlawful assembly to be to obstruct P.W. 11 and others of the excise party in the lawful discharge of their duties and to assault them if opposed. Though two common objects were in relation to one incident, they were different in nature. But failure of the charge involving the first common object of obstructing the public servants in lawful discharge of their duties does not necessarily take away the other common object of assaulting the same officers and their party. The facts and circumstances of each case are to determine whether the two common objects are so inter-related that failure to prove one will necessarily involve the failure of the other. In the present case the prosecution wanted to prove that the accused persons had common object of obstructing public servants and they also had the common object of assaulting them. The evidence disclosed that when respondent no. 1 and his two sons were asked to measure the contraband tobacco kept on their roof and in the dalan of another person, they not only refused but collected a mob to obstruct the public servants in carrying out their intention of searching and inspecting the supposed contraband tobacco. The excise party receded, at the collection of this mob and threats given by them, from that place to take shelter in their jeep, yet, the mob including the respondents followed them and inflicted injuries by brickbats and lathis. From this and from the medical evidence about the injuries sustained by different prosecution witnesses, the other common object about assault appears to have been well established. From this and from the medical evidence about the injuries sustained by different prosecution witnesses, the other common object about assault appears to have been well established. The conviction of the respondents under section 147 of the Penal Code by the trial court therefore was justified. 9. I would, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect and uphold the conviction of the respondents under section 147 of the Penal Code. In the circumstances of the case I think that ends of justice will be met if each of the respondents is sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment in place of one year as ordered by the trial Court. The Government Appeal is allowed in part. The acquittal of the respondents of offence under section 353 is confirmed and their conviction under section 147 of the Penal Code as ordered by the trial Court is restored and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is imposed upon each of the respondents. The respondents are directed to surrender to serve out the remaining period of their sentences.