Invalid arrest warrant without court seal cannot sustain obstruction charges, but rioting conviction may still stand independently.

A warrant of arrest that lacked the court seal was treated as invalid because the statutory requirements for authenticity and validity were not met, so custody under it was unlawful and resistance to its execution could not sustain convictions for obstruction-related offences. Those convictions were therefore set aside. The separate rioting conviction was maintained because the evidence showed participation by more than five persons using criminal force, satisfying the ingredients of unlawful assembly and rioting independently of the defective warrant. The sentence for rioting was treated as sufficient by the period already undergone, and the fine was removed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a warrant of arrest issued without the seal of the court was invalid so as to vitiate the convictions under Sections 225B and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the evidence that five or more persons took part in the occurrence.

Issue (i): Whether a warrant of arrest issued without the seal of the court was invalid so as to vitiate the convictions under Sections 225B and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 required every warrant of arrest to be in writing, signed by the presiding officer, and to bear the seal of the court. The requirement of a seal was treated as essential to the authenticity and validity of the warrant. Since the warrant in question did not bear the court's seal, it was held to be illegal, and custody under such a warrant was also illegal. Resistance to the execution of an illegal warrant could not support liability under Sections 225B or 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion: The convictions under Sections 225B and 353 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the evidence that five or more persons took part in the occurrence.

Analysis: The evidence on record showed that more than five persons participated in rescuing the detainee by use of criminal force. Even though the warrant was invalid, the participation of a sufficient number of persons brought the act within the ingredients of unlawful assembly and rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The defect in the warrant did not affect the separate offence of rioting once the numerical requirement and the use of force were established.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by sustaining only the conviction for rioting while setting aside the other convictions, with the sentence under Section 147 treated as sufficient by the period already undergone and the fine removed.

Ratio Decidendi: A warrant of arrest that does not bear the court seal as required by law is invalid, and resistance to its execution will not attract liability for obstruction offences, but a separate conviction for rioting may still stand where the ingredients of unlawful assembly are independently proved.

---