RATNA MUDALI Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point argued is that the arrest was illegal. It is in evidence that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Velan and Kuppan on a charge of a cognizable offence, that the constable knew of this, and had been directed by their Sub-Inspector to be on the look-out for them and arrest them if found. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation whatever in deciding that they were justified under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in making the arrest. Of the cases quoted by Mr. Rangachariyar, In the matter of Charu Ch. Majumdar (1916) 20 C.W.N., 1233 is clearly distinguishable on the ground that no warrant had been issued. The other cases Abdul Gafur v. Queen-Empress (1896) I.L.R. 23 Calc.896, Queen- Empress v. Dalip (1896) I.L.R. 18 All. 246 and Queen-Empress v. Kalian (1896) I.L.R. 19 Mad. 310, appear to me to have no bearing on the applicability of Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) There is no reason for interfering with the convictions but I regard the imposition of a fine on the first accused as unnecessary and would remit that portion of the sentence.

(3.) The fine, if paid, should be refunded. Napier, J.