Chotu Hajjam and Others vs Emperor

Rowland, J.—The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 147 and 225, I. P.C., the occurrence being the rescue from the custody of a chaukidar of a man who was being escorted to the police station on a charge of theft. A Rule was issued on the ground that the rescue from the custody of the chaukidar was not illegal within the meaning of Section 225, I. P. C, the point, that is to say, is whether the chaukidar''s custody was lawful custody. Section 59, Criminal P.C., authorizes any private person to arrest any person who in his view commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence and to take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.

It is to be seen whether the offence of theft was committed in the view of the person who arrested the alleged thief and whether such person after arresting the thief made him over to the chaukidar. Before the amendment of the Code in 1923 it had been held in some cases that a chaukidar not being a police officer had no power to receive the custody of a person arrested u/s 59 by a private individual and to take such person to the police station.

But the amendment in 1923 by inserting the words "or cause him to be taken in custody" has made it impossible to raise this somewhat technical argument now. Moreover the district in which the alleged occurrence took place is Chota Nagpur where special powers are given and duties imposed on chaukidars by the Chota Nagpur Rural Police Act, 1914 (Bihar and Orissa Act 1 of 1914), Sections 21(1)(6) and 22.

Coming to the evidence I find that it is clearly stated by P. W. 3 Mora Manjhi that he saw two Mahomedans catching a fowl belonging to Anpa and with the assistance of Gora Manjhi caught one of the thieves. Anpa (P.W. 2) corroborates this. It also appears in evidence that Mora among others was with the chaukidar at the time of the rescue.

The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge accepted the evidence, and I think they were fully justified in doing so. There was no defect in the legality of the arrest, or of the custody, and there is no defect in the conviction. The Rule is discharged.