1. The first point taken is that the warrant had become time expired when it was sought to be executed by the Amin and therefore he could not be treated as having acted in the proper discharge of his duty. The time fixed by the Munsif for the return of the warrant had however not expired. Only the time given by the Nazir had expired. The Amin derives his authority to execute the warrant in virtue of his office from the Court, that is the Munsif. The Nazir could not and did not take away that power. He only directed an earlier return as a matter of office routine, and that did not affect the Amin's authority. The same view is taken in Subed Ali v. Emperor I.L.R. (1913) Cal. 849. Following that ruling I must overrule the 1st objection.
2. It is next argued that there is no evidence of any assault under Section 353 I.P.C. against the 1st accused. The prosecution witnesses prove that the 1st accused left the place where the disturbance was and came back with a stick in his hand, and as they apprehended that he would attack them they disarmed him. I think the evidence is enough to justify the inference of both the lower Courts that 1st accused in coming back to the scene armed with a stick was making preparations to use criminal force to Amin and the constables. That they apprehended such a result is clear from the evidence and from their action in disarming him. The second ground also fails. As against second accused there is clear evidence that he pushed the Amin and thus committed assault.
3. The convictions under Section 353 I.P.C. are correct and are confirmed.
4. As regards the sentences I am inclined to think that in the circumstances of this case considering that no serious violence was used, it is necessary to give the accused rigorous imprisonment. I set aside the sentences of 2 months rigorous imprisonment passed on the accused and substitute for it a fine of Rs. 50 againt each of the accused in default one month's rigorous imprisonment.