FATTU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is aFn application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge of Meerut, who confirmed the conviction and sentences passed upon seven applicants for an offence under Section 225-B, I.P.C. A warrant was issued by a Revenue Court for the arrest of one Sarup Singh. Sarup Singh was arrested but he was rescued from the peons who arrested him. These facts maybe taken as admitted.

(2.) This application in revision challenges the legality of the warrant. This objection is twofold. In the first place the warrant does not disclose the name or official designation of the person to whom the warrant was issued for execution, and secondly the warrant was served simultaneously with a notice under Order 21, Rule 37, Civil P.C.

(3.) In our opinion the warrant was defective for both the reasons stated by the learned counsel. A warrant must be issued to some person for execution; and where no name or description of that person is given in the warrant, the person arrested can have no knowledge that the persons who present the warrant are legally 0authorized to do so. It may be: that the person who is arrested is unable: to read the warrant and has no knowledge as to whether the warrant is or is| not properly filled up but it is the duty! of the Court to issue a warrant in proper, form, ands where a warrant is incomplete-it has been held by more than one High] Court that the subsequent release of a person arrested under such a warrant is not an offence under Section 225-B, I.P.C. There is a very recent decision on this point by a learned Judge of this Court reported in Jagannathv. Emperor . In that case a warrant had been issued to the Nazir, and the Nazir without any endorsement made it over to a subordinate official. It was held that the warrant was defective and did not authorize the person who directed the peons to make the arrest, and that accordingly an escape from custody in such a case w as no offence. In our opinion the learned Judge decided that case on correct principles and the present case is a stronger one, for in this case the colurrta which should contain the name of the person to whom the warrant was issued for execution is blank. There is a parallel case recently decided by the Patna High Court, Baclri Gope V/s. Emperor A.I.R. 1926 Pat. 237, in which a warrant, otherwise complete, was defective as it was afterwards found that the seal of the Court was missing. Although this fact was not known to the persons who rescued the person arrested, the Court held that, as he warrant was defective, they had committed no offence under Section 225-B.