JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. -The first six applicants were convicted by a Magistrate First Class, Bijnor, of offences under sections 147, 332/149, and 225-B/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment, to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to three months rigorous imprisonment respectively under these counts. Applicants Zahid and Nazir were convicted under section 225-B I.P.C. and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. On appeal their conviction and sentences were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this revision. 3. According to the prosecution constables Idris Ahmad and Amar Singh went to village Hitai an 4-1-1965 arrested applicants Zahid and Nazir in pursuance of a warrant under section 56 Cr.P.C. and brought them to the Baithak of Mukhtar Ahmad. In the meantime the other six applicants arrived there in a menacing attitude and asked Idris Ahmad to show them the warrant. Idris Ahmed showed them the warrant but they said that it was fictitious. Then they assaulted Idris Ahmed, snatched the warrant from his hand and allowed Zahid and Nazir to escape from the lawful custody of the constables. On a report lodged by the constable the case was investigated and the applicants were sent up for trial. 4. Applicants denied their participation and asserted to have been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity with the police and Mukhtar Ahmad. 5. The prosecution case was supported by Idris Ahmad and Amar Singh (P.Ws. 2 and 3) who had gone to effect the arrest. Their testimoney was corroborated by Dal Chand and Nazir Husain (P.Ws. 4 and 6) who are the residents of the same village and Sahab Singh and Mehar Singh (P.Ws. 7 and 8) who reside in the neighbouring village. 6. Sri P.G. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, has argued that as the alleged warrant has not been issued in accordance with the provision of section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the constables had no authority to arrest Zahid and Nazir accused and as such, if they were rescued by the other applicants no offence is brought out against them. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the fact what Idris Ahmad had received no visible injury. 7. It has come in evidence that the warrant was issued for the arrest of Zahid and Nazir who were required in proceeding under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the fact what Idris Ahmad had received no visible injury. 7. It has come in evidence that the warrant was issued for the arrest of Zahid and Nazir who were required in proceeding under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is therefore, obvious that they could not have lawfully arrested without a warrant as they were not being tried for a cognisable offence. The police officer had no jurisdiction; therefore, to issue a warrant for their arrest and the two constables were not legally authorised to effect their arrest in pursuance of the warrant which was not in accordance with law. Thus no offence is made out against the applicants. 8. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the applicants as recorded by the trial Magistrate are as set aside. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender.