1. The only point argued is that the arrest was illegal. It is in evidence that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Velan and Kuppan on a charge of a cognizable offence, that the constable knew of this, and had been directed by their Sub-Inspector to be on the look-out for them and arrest them if found. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation whatever in deciding that they were justified under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in making the arrest. Of the cases quoted by Mr. Rangachariyar, In the matter of Charu Ch. Majumdar 20 C.W.N. 1233 is clearly distinguishable on the ground that no warrant had been issued. The other cases Abdul Gafur v. Queen-Empress I.L.R. (1896) Cal.896, Queen-Empress v. Dalip I.L.R. (1896) All. 246 and Queen-Empress v. Kalian I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 310, appear to me to have no bearing on the applicability of Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. There is no reason for interfering with the convictions but I regard the imposition of a fine on the first accused as unnecessary and would remit that portion of the sentence.
3. The fine, if paid, should be refunded.
4. This point is to my mind not arguable. A clear distinction is made in the Criminal Procedure Code between cognizable and non-cognizable cases. Section 54 empowers any police officer to arrest without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant any person who has been concerned in a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has teen made or credible information received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. The object of the Code is to give the widest powers to the police in cognizable cases and the only limitation is the necessary requirement of reasonability and credibility to prevent the misuse of the powers. The legislature could have confined the power to officers in charge of a police station as is done in Section 55 where matters are dealt with which are not offences but has not thought fit to do so. The suggestion that a police officer who suspects a man of having committed a cognizable offence may arrest but that he may not arrest when a warrant has been issued, has nothing in the language of the section to support it and would enable a man wanted by the police on a charge of murder, for instance, to defy every police officer except the one who held the warrant. In the matter of Charu Ch. Majumdar (1916) 20 C.W.N. 1233 is a case where the accused was wanted by the police in Bombay and he was arrested in Bengal at their request, and there is no evidence that a warrant had been issued. There is, in my opinion, nothing in the learned Judge's observations which, support the argument addressed to us. I agree with the order of my learned brother.