JUDGMENT

V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application on behalf on four persons who have been convicted u/s 147, 323 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75/ - each under each count.

2. The applicants had obstructed a commissioner, Sri Tejvir Singh, who had been appointed to execute a decree. He went to the spot on 31-(sic) -1953 The accused were challaned u/s 147, 323 read with Section 149, and 332 read with Section 149, IPC. In appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction u/s 332 read with Section 149, IPC on the ground that by virtue of Section 75, CPC a commissioner could not be appointed for executing a decree by delivery of possession and, therefore, he was of opinion that Shri Tejvir Singh, when he went to effect delivery of possession, was not acting as a public officer.

3. It was urged by learned Counsel for the applicants that since he was not properly appointed and he wanted to dispossess the accused of their property, the accused had perfect right to resist it. Therefore, they could not be convicted u/s 147 and 23 read with Section 149, IPC. I am unable to agree with this contention. In my opinion the learned