Ramnandan Singh vs Emperor

Macpherson, J.—This is an application in revision against the conviction of the petitioner u/s 225A, Indian Penal Code, and the fine of Rs. 30 imposed upon him.

The fasts found are that the petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector, of Police, under the direction of the Inspector of Police who was his superior officer, arrested u/s 55, Criminal Procedure Code, Etwari Kahar and three others who where about to be prosecuted u/s 110, Criminal Procedure Code, placed them in a room in the inspection bungalow at Dharaha and negligently permitted Etwari Kahar to escape from confinement in which he was legally bound as a public servant to keep him.

The bungalow which faces and has a verandah to the north consists of two rooms with an intervening door and dressing-rooms to the south. The door mentioned and the doors leading from each room on to the verandh were the only doors open. The prisoners after arrest were placed in the eastern room and the Sub-Inspector and his constables were at the door north of it. At the order of the Sub-Inspector a constable went in to handcuff the prisoners whereupon Etwari Kahar slipped out by the open door in the western room where the Inspector and the Head Constable were or at least the latter was, and then into the verandah by the northern door of that room and escaped. At a later date he was recaptured through the efforts of the; petitioner and on a complaint of the; petitioner was convicted of an offence u/s 225A for escaping from the petitioner''s custody. The present prosecution has been undertaken under the orders of the Superintendent of Police.

Mr. Nandkeolyar raises two points only (1) that facts found do npt constitute negligence, and (2) Etwari Kahar was hot in legal custody of the petitioner.

The first point is clearly untenable. It was certainly negligence to leave open the connecting door between the two rooms and the omission to secure it was the main cause of the escape of the prisoner from custody. Other indications of negligence are also set out by the Courts below.

In support of the second point reliance is placed upon a decision of a single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Kala v. Emperor 89 Ind. Cas. 400 : AIR 1925 Lah. 623 : 1 Lah. Cas. 51 : 26 Cri. L.J. 136 for the proposition that the Police have no authority to arrest in anticipation of proceedings u/s 110, Criminal Procedure Code. In the first place, I am not prepared to accept the correctness of the decision. Further in any event the facts are distinguishable from the present case because in the case cited a report had already been submitted to the Magistrate for proceedings u/s 110 on which the Magistrate had failed to issue either summons or warrant of arrest. To my mind the correct decision on the point is to be found in Nipal v. Emperor 21 Ind. Cas. 666 : 35 A. 407 : 11 A.L.J. 526 : 14 Cri. L.J. 618 where Tudball, J. pointed out that Section 55, Criminal Procedure, Code, is independent of Chap. VIII of the Code which includes Section 110, although proceedings under that Chapter might follow an arrest u/s 55, Criminal Procedure Code, as a natural sequence, and that a Police Officer can, therefore, arrest or cause to be arrested, without a warrant or an order of a Magistrate, any person who comes within the provisions of Section 55(1)(c). It is not denied that Etwari Kahar came within the category described in that enactment. Accordingly under the provisions of Section 551 read with Section 55(1)(c) the petitioner was entitled to arrest, as he did arrest, Etwari Kahar, without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant, and the confinement from which the petitioner suffered the said prisoner to escape was a lawful confinement in which the petitioner was legally bound to keep him, Thus the second point also fails.

On the understanding that this is the only punishment to which the petitioner will be subject, I do not interfere with the sentence.

The Rule is discharged.