JIOO MIAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally there were nine petitioners who moved this Court but the application of three of them was rejected at the time of admission. The remaining petitioners, in whose favour the rule was issued, were convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced by the lower Appellate Court to six months rigorous imprisonment. There were charges under Secs.353 and 225, I.P.C. against all the accused, and although no sentence was passed under any of these sections, the learned Sessions Judge on appeal set aside their conviction under these two sections.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that the Sub-Inspector of Nasriganj thana went to Barnadihri the village of the accused Manrakhan, on 16 October 1936, in connexion with a police case under Section 148, I.P.C. against Manrakhan and with him went a constable named Nathuni Khan. Nathuni Khan was given a command certificate to arrest Manrakhan Mian. The constable Nathuni Khan went with a number of dafadars and chaukidars to arrest Manrakhan and when he reached near the Baithak of Manrakhan he saw a man moving away. Nathuni Khan enquired who the man was and when the man gave his name as Manarkhan the constable asked him to go to the Sub-Inspector. Manrakhan tried to escape but Nathuni caught hold of him. Thereupon Manrakhan raised a cry upon which the other accused rushed to the place variously armed and rescued Manrakhan. Two of them, whose petition has already been refused, are said to have assaulted with lathis, and the rest took part in the scuffle which took place in rescuing Manrakhan from the constable. The defence advanced was a denial of the whole occurrence and they came out with a counter version, which has not been accepted by the Courts below, that the constable and his party wanted to enter the zanana of Manrakhan and that they beat the tiles and thatch of his house.

(3.) Now, so far as the occurrence is concerned, there can be no doubt on the evidence that the occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. In revision it has been urged before us that the arrest of Manrakhan was illegal because the provisions of Section 56, Criminal P.C., were not complied with inasmuch as the substance of the command certificate was not given out to the accused before they were arrested.