Skip to content


Satish Chandra Rai and anr. Vs. Jodu Nandan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR26Cal743
AppellantSatish Chandra Rai and anr.
RespondentJodu Nandan Singh
Cases ReferredAbdul Gafur v. Queen
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 310a - civil procedure code amendment act (v of 1894)--power of a court to set aside a sale if the deposit provided for in section 310a be not paid within thirty days. - .....made within the terms of section 80 of the code of criminal procedure, inasmuch as when the police officer, (sic) was resisted, made the arrest, he did not notify the substance of the warrant which he held to the person to be arrested. as an authority for this we have been referred to the case of abdul gafur v. queen-empress (1896) i.l.r., 23 cal., 896, in which it was held that an arrest so made is not a lawful arrest, resistance to which is an offence under the penal code. the arrest here made was not for an offence for which a police officer was competent to make the arrest without a warrant. it was for the purpose of obtaining the attendance of a person who was a party to certain proceedings instituted under section 110 of the code of criminal procedure; that is, who had been.....
Judgment:

Prinsep and Hill, JJ.

1. The petitioners were convicted by the Appellate Court under Section 225 B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. On this rule, we have to consider whether the conviction is a valid conviction because the arrest was not lawfully made within the terms of Section 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as when the police officer, (sic) was resisted, made the arrest, he did not notify the substance of the warrant which he held to the person to be arrested. As an authority for this we have been referred to the case of Abdul Gafur v. Queen-Empress (1896) I.L.R., 23 Cal., 896, in which it was held that an arrest so made is not a lawful arrest, resistance to which is an offence under the Penal Code. The arrest here made was not for an offence for which a police officer was competent to make the arrest without a warrant. It was for the purpose of obtaining the attendance of a person who was a party to certain proceedings instituted under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that is, who had been required to show cause why he should not give security for good behaviour. It has, however, been said that the person to be arrested, and the petitioners were aware that the police constable had a warrant of arrest, and that, although he did not notify its substance, he showed it on the occasion of the arrest. We are not satisfied that this in itself would be sufficient to make an arrest valid without any notification of the substance of the warrant, or an opportunity given to the person to be arrested by showing him the warrant so that he might read it. In this case the warrant was held in the hand of the police officer along with six other warrants, and thus shown to him, and it was impossible for any one to know what the substance of the warrant may have been, or indeed for him to satisfy himself that the police constable really held a warrant for the arrest he was making. The conviction and sentence must, therefore, be set aside and the rule made absolute.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //