1. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court have found that the Respondent-accused escaped from custody and their findings are warranted by the evidence. The appellate Court however has found that the respondent was not in lawful custody, because there was no order in writing for him to be detained in the custody of the two process peons (P. Ws. 2 and 3). Order 21, Rule 40, Criminal P.C. 1908, however says nothing about the order having to be in writing. The proviso added by the High Court to Order 21, Rule 40(5), Criminal P.C. says that in order to allow the judgment-debtor an opportunity of satisfying the decree, the Court before making the order of committal may leave the judgment-debtor in the custody of an officer of the Court for a period not exceeding ten days. This is what the District Munsif did in this case and his order, noted on the warrant, as to the judgment-debtor's paying detention batta limited the period of such custody to two days. Emperor v. Madho Singh : AIR1925All318 , is no help to the respondent in the face of the proviso above noted. The acquittal of the respondent is set aside and his conviction by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate under Section 225-B, I.P.C. is restored. His offence however was only a technical one and he surrendered himself to the Court on the expiry of the two days. He is fined Re. 1 with one day's simple imprisonment in default.