1. The petitioner has been convicted of rescuing one Ramasami Moopan from lawful custody. Mr. Deva Doss's arguments have been devoted to show 5 C.W.N. 843 that the custody in which Ramasamy Moopan was detained was not lawful; (2) that the evidence does not show that the force used by the petitioner contributed to his escape.
2. No authority has been quoted to me to support the view that the arrest was illegal because the warrant was not addressed to P.W. No. 2 by name but only to 'The Bailiff of the Court,' or that arrest only-takes effect, after the person ordered to be arrested has been given a chance of paying up the decree amount and has failed to do so. I have no. hesitation in rejecting these contentions.
3. It is next argued that the procedure of the peon (P. W. No. 2) was defective in that he did not notify the contents of the warrant to the first accused before arresting him. It appears from the evidence that P. W. No. 2 informed the first accused that he had a warrant for his arrest, held it out to him and asked him to sign it, thereby affording him a chance of satisfying himself as to its contents: and that the 1st accused without taking the warrant began to object on. the ground of the lateness of the hour and attempted to run away. Neither, of the cases relied on for the petitioner, In the matter of Rajani Kanto Pal v. Emperor 5 C.W.N. 843 and Satish Chandra Rai v. Jodu Nandan. Singh 26 Ca. 748 : 3 C.W.N. 741, appear to be authority for holding that in these circumstances the arrest was illegal.
4. As regards the second point stress is laid on the fact that the force used by the petitioner was not to P. W. No. 3 but to another peon, P. W. No. 2, who was accompanying him at his request and assisting him. A perusal of the evidence seems to show that the violence used against P. W. No. 3 contributed to the escape of the first accused just as much as if it had been employed against P.W. No. 2.
5. I find no ground for interference and dismiss the petition.