PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SENNIMALAI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are bound by the authority of Queen-Empress v. Muppan 18 M. 401 : 1 Weir 203 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 628 and Public Prosecutor v. Ramaswami Konan 31 M. 271 : 8 Cr.L.J. 200 : 18 M.L.J. 540, both of which place the consent and neglect of the custodian on the same footing. These rulings have been distinguished by Krishnasami Aiyar, J., in Public Prosecutor, In re 7 Ind. Cas. 392 : 8 M.L.T. 286 : 11 Cr.L.J. 477 : (1910) : M.W.N. 592, but with all respect we do not think the ground of distinction is sound.

(2.) We may refer to the wording of Section 221 of the Indian Penal Code as illustrative of the meaning to be given to the word "escape" in Section 225 B. Section 221 speaks of a public servant who "intentionally suffers such person to escape." This strongly suggests that an escape is nonetheless an escape, though effected with the "consent of the custodian.

(3.) Under the terms of the warrant in this case, the process-server was only authorised to release the judgment-debtor on actual receipt of the decree amount.