Judgment Anant Singh, J. 1. In this application in revision there are three petitioners. They have been convicted under Sec.332. Indian Penal Code with one years rigorous imprisonment each Petitioner Dhanoo Mandal has been further convicted under Sec.224 of the Penal Code with one years rigorous imprisonment and the other two also under Sec.225 of the Penal Code each with one years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences against them are to run concurrently They are all residents of mouza Rewasi Pakri within Sitamarhi Police Station in the district of Muzaffarpur. There were bailable warrants of arrest (Exs. 1. 1/1 1/2 and 1/3) issued by a Magistrate of Sitamarhi against four different persons, and one of these warrants (Ext. 1) was issued against petitioner Dhanoo Mnndal for his apprehension in connection with a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was dated the 30th September, 1962, and the date fixed in the proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was the 18th October, 1962 The warrants including the warrant (Ext. 1) were endorsed by the Magistrate for execution to the Officer in-charge of Sitamarhi Police Station, and the Officer in-charge of Sitamarhi Police station in his turn endorsed the warrant (Ext. 1), apart from the other warrants, to constable Hirday Narain Mishra for execution. This endorsement is dated 7-10-1962 and has been marked as Ext. 2. 2. It was on the 22nd October, 1962 that constable Hirday Narain Mishra (P. W. 7) was commanded by the Officer-in-charge with a command certificate (Ext. 3) to proceed to execute the warrants of arrest relating to four persons including petitioner Dhanoo Mandal It was al about 1 p.m. on the 24th October, 1962 that P W 7 visited village Rewasi Pakri, which was eleven miles west from Sitamarhi Police Station, and went to the Darwaja of petitioner Indar Mandal who happened to be the Chaukidar P W 7 enquired of Indar Mandal about petitioner Dhanoo Mandal, and on his pointing of Dhanoo Mandal, the constable (P W 7) approached Dhanoo Mandal and apprised him of the warrant of arrest against him. The constable wants to arrest Dhanoo Mandal, when there was a scuffle between the two. They both came to grips. Thereafter, petitioners Indar Mandal and Rajib Mandal asked the constable to spare Dhanoo Mandal since he was their man but when the constable did not release Dhanoo Mandal. The constable wants to arrest Dhanoo Mandal, when there was a scuffle between the two. They both came to grips. Thereafter, petitioners Indar Mandal and Rajib Mandal asked the constable to spare Dhanoo Mandal since he was their man but when the constable did not release Dhanoo Mandal. Rajib and Indar caught the hands of the constable and twisted his right wrist, as a result whereof it caused a fracture of his right wrist. Dhanoo Mandal got free and made good his escape There was a hulla which attracted to the scene Lakshman Mahto (P W 5) and Mahanth Sahni (P W 4) amongst others who all saw the occurrence. 3. The constable (P W 7) made a report of the whole episode on the back of warrant (Ext 1) itself and lodged first information report before the officer-in-charge of Sitamarhi Police station the same day at 10 15 p.m. The case was duly investigated and the three petitioners in due course were put on trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge after commitment enquiry. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced these petitioners in the manner aforesaid, and their convictions and sentences have both been upheld on appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated the 20th July, 1964. The petitioners have since filed this revision application. 4. Mr. Ras Bihari Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to assail the findings of fact against the guilt of the petitioners. He has, however, raised a point that the warrant of arrest against Dhanoo Mandal was returnable by the 18th October, 1962, and therefore, by the time when the wararnt of arrest was sought to be executed by the constable on the 24th October, 1962, it had spent its force and was no longer a valid warrant. He has also raised a question that the endorsement of the warrant by the officer-in-charge to the constable (P. W. 7) was also not proper. But, both these points seem to have no force whatsoever. 5. It is provided in Sub-clause (2) of Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the warrant of arrest issued by a Court "shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until it is executed". The present warrant of arrest against Dhanoo Mandal was never cancelled. 5. It is provided in Sub-clause (2) of Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the warrant of arrest issued by a Court "shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until it is executed". The present warrant of arrest against Dhanoo Mandal was never cancelled. It is true that it was not executed in time earlier than the date fixed in the case in which Dhanoo Mandal was wanted, but it was sought to be executed on the 24th October, 1962 about six days after the date fixed in the original case. But since the warrant was never cancelled, it continued to be valid even after the expiry of the date fixed for return of the warrant. Although in the present case no date had been fixed for the return of the warrant, but impliedly it should have been returned before the date fixed in the proceedings, that is, 18th October, 1962. There is a direct authority of a Division Bench of this Court in Emperor y. Binda Ahir 29 Cri LJ 1007 : (AIR 1928 Pat 466 (1) ) on this point. Thus, the warrant continued to be valid, when the constable (P. W. 7) tried to execute it by apprehending petitioner Dhanoo Mandal. 6. As to the validity of the endorsement of the warrant by the officer-in-charge to the constable for execution, Section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly provides that "a warrant directed to any police-officer may also be executed by any other police officer whose name is endorsed upon the warrant by the officer to whom it is directed or endorsed". The officer-in-charge of Sitamarhi Police station to whom the warrant had been directed to be executed had endorsed (vide Ext. 2) the warrant of arrest (Ext. 1) for execution to the constable (P. W. 7), and, therefore, there was no illegality in the endorsement of the warrant at all. The convictions of the three petitioners on the two separate counts are perfectly justified. 7. As to the sentence on each count, it may appear to be a little harsh when no serious injury was caused to the constable. It is true that the obstruction in the execution of the warrant of arrest by the three petitioners by using violence to the constable was a serious one. But taking everything into account. 7. As to the sentence on each count, it may appear to be a little harsh when no serious injury was caused to the constable. It is true that the obstruction in the execution of the warrant of arrest by the three petitioners by using violence to the constable was a serious one. But taking everything into account. I think the ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentence on each count to six months rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. With this modification in the sentence, the application is dismissed.