MUMTAZ KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this reference are that one Bashir was alleged to have caused some injuries to Nasir at about 10.30 P.M. on 16 -9 -1967. It was alleged that an alarm was raised and thereupon, some people came to the scene of occurrence and tried to arrest Bashir and at that moment the Applicant, Mumtaz Khan, intervened and as a result of his intervention Bashir was rescued. The Applicant was, therefore, charged Under Section 225 of the IPC, which deals with resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person. Bashir and another person, Nannu were charged Under Section 225 (324) of the IPC.

(2.) AGAINST the framing of the charge Under Section 225 of the IPC by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), by his order dated 3 -7 -1969, the Applicant preferred a revision, which was allowed by the learned II Temporary Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, who has made the present reference recommending that the order passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside.

(3.) THE Applicant in the instant case could not be said to have committed any offence Under Section 225, IPC even if all the allegations against the Applicant are taken to be correct. An offence Under Section 324 IPC, for which Bashir and Nannu were charged, was bailable and as such the arrest of Bashir did not amount to lawful arrest by a private individual or the persons who collected on the alarm on the scene of occurrence at 10.30 P.M. on 16 -7 -1967. If the arrest by private individuals was unauthorised the Applicant could not be charged for an offence Under Section 225 of the IPC. Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant in this connection. It deals with arrest by private persons and procedure on such arrest and Sub -section (1) reads as follows: