ANNAN NARASIMHA AYYAR Vs. RANGATHAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case brought against the petitioners as gathered from a part of the charge sheet filed in this case is that they committed an offence under Section 216 -A, Indian Penal Code. The allegation against them is that, knowing full well that four persons mentioned in the charge sheet had all, along with others committed dacoity on the night of 11th February, 1946, at Tirupati'by forcibly removing the cinema amplifier from police custody and that a case of dacoity had been registered against them and that they were wanted in that case, they harboured those four persons from 16th February, 1946, to March 1946 with food, shelter and money at Tirupati with the intention of screening them from punishment and to make them evade apprehension in P.R. Case Nos. 4 and 5 of 1946. The four persons mentioned in the charge sheet as the individuals who were harboured by the petitioners were tried along with others for offences under Sections 395 and 353, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate who tried them found that there was no evidence on record to justify the case being placed before the jury against any of the accused therein with regard to either of the offence of dacoity or the offence of assaulting a public servant and that there were no grounds to commit the accused to take their trial in the Court of Session. He directed the discharge of the accused persons. The result of the discharge is that the four persons cited as P. Ws. 1 to 4 in the charge sheet in the present case and who are stated to have committed dacoity, and in respect thereof harboured by the petitioners have been by a judicial order which has become final absolved altogether from any liability in respect of the alleged crime of dacoity.

(2.) THE question raised upon these facts by Mr. Rangaswami Ayyangar on behalf of the petitioners is that in view of the discharge of the four persons, who were stated to have been harboured by the petitioners, of the offeree of dacoity the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 216 -A, Indian Penal Code, is untenable. Section 216 -A reads thus so far as is material to the present case:

(3.) HAVING regard to this principle and the clear distinction that exists between the language of those other sections and Section 216 which the learned Judge was considering in that case he was of the opinion that the requirements of Section 216 were satisfied if it was shown that there was an order of apprehension in force which the person harbouring knew when harbouring the person and he did that act for the purpose of preventing him from being apprehended. There are decisions of other High Courts on the same lines which it is unnecessary to advert to here. The principle applicable to such cases is to my mind perfectly clear that when a person charged with the substantive offence of dacoity or robbery has been acquitted of that offence, another person who is said to have intended to screen him from legal punishment in respect of that offence cannot be held guilty of harbouring the alleged offender under Section 216 -A, Indian Penal Code.