AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 214 wordsWe are bound by the authority of Queen-Empress v. Muppan 1 Weir 203 : 6 Ind. Dec. 628 and Public Prosecutor v. Ramaswami Konan 8
Cri.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 Cri.L.J. 477 : (1910) M.W.N. 592, but
with all respect we do not think the ground of distinction is sound.
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.
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.
We must set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and restore the conviction; but we reduce the sentence to the term of
imprisonment already undergone which is, in our opinion, sufficient.