PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. ABDUL RAZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Government from an order of acquittal. The facts are not disputed. The respondent was arrested by a process-server (P.W. 1) of the Court of the District Munsif of Kurnool on 3 October, 1936. The order for his arrest was passed by the District Munsif in execution of a decree of a Panchayat Court. The respondent signed on the warrant but did not go with the process- server to the Court. He told the process-server that he would pay the money and then went into his house and refused to come thereafter. The next day when the process-server went to his house again, the accused was not to be found.

(2.) The learned Sub-Magistrate found these facts established but considered that the respondent was not guilty of any offence because the arrest warrant had been signed by the Head Clerk of the District Munsif's Court. He found that the Head Clerk had been authorised to sign arrest warrants in the time of the former District Munsif. But the District Munsif in charge of the Court in September, 1936, had not authorised his Head Clerk to sign arrest warrants and the learned Sub-Magistrate thought that the issue of warrants with the signature of the Head Clerk in the absence of an authorisation by the existing District Munsif was illegal. On this view, he thought that the act of the accused did not amount to an offence of escaping from lawful custody. He therefore acquitted him.

(3.) The learned Sub-Magistrate's view is erroneous. It is not necessary that the District Munsiff of the time should authorise a Head Clerk to sign warrants of arrest. It was proved that on the 4 June, 1935, the then District Munsif Mr. C. Rajagopalan passed a general order Ex, C to this effect: All the warrants of arrest ordered by this Court shall hereafter be signed by the Head Clerk. All the other processes shall be signed by the Deputy Nazir.