KING EMPEROR Vs. LACHHU KAMARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent (Lachhu Kamara) was put on trial for baring committed an offence under Section 224, Penal Code, on the allegations that he offered resistance to his lawful apprehension for an offence under Section 447, Penal Code, with which he was then charged and that he escaped from the custody of Sri K. M. Cbakrabarty, officer-in-charge of Lamptaput Out Post, by whom he was lawfully detained for tbe said offence.

(2.) He was acquitted of this charge by Sri K. K- Samal, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Koraput. This appeal by the Government is directed against that order of acquittal. In order to bring the charge home to the accused, it has to be established that the accused intentionally offered resistance to his lawful apprehension for any offence with which he was charged or he escaped from the custody in which he was lawfully detained. It was to be examined whether these elements of the offence have been established in this case. To start with, there are no materials on record to guarantee a finding that his apprehension Page 1 of 3 King-Emperor vs. Lachhu Kamara (13.09.1949 - ORIHC) that was resisted was a lawful one The case under Section 447 is one in which, according to Section 204, Criminal P. C., summons has to be issued for the accused's attendance. The material portion of the section reads:

(3.) As I have said, according to col. 4 of Schedule II, summons as distinguished from warrant of arrest has to be issued at the first instance. Assuming it waa the first process issued after the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, it would be beyond his competence. He shall be entitled to issue a warrant not in tbe first instance but only later after the summonses are not complied with. There is no material before us to say that this warrant was issued not at the , first instance but later. We can say that the prosecution has failed to establish that his apprehension was lawful one within the meaning of Section 234.