High Courts(1902) 04 CAL CK 0001

The Deputy Legal Remembrancer on Behalf of the Local Government vs Mir Sarwar Jan

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 22 April 1902

CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 2 of 1902

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

In our order of the 6th February last we dealt with the question of law upon which this appeal was preferred on the part of the Government. We found it necessary to remand the case in order that evidence might be taken as to the authorization of the Subordinate Judge''s sheristadar to sign warrants issued by Subordinate Judge''s Court. The evidence which has been taken in accordance with our order has now been certified to us, and we are satisfied upon that evidence that the sheristadar was duly authorised to sign warrants, and that there was therefore no irregularity in the warrant now in question. The Joint Magistrate did not deal with the facts of the case upon the evidence, because he considered that the question of law sufficiently disposed of the case. It has therefore been necessary for us to go into the evidence. The evidence is by no means free from discrepancy, and we have little doubt that there has been an attempt on the part of some of the witnesses to exaggerate the case: but we think that we may safely take it, upon the evidence of the peon himself who is apparently a perfectly independent witness, that what happened was, that be showed the warrant to the accused person and signified his intention of arresting him and that the accused person then went off into his inner apartment, bolting the door, and thus made it impossible for the peon to execute the warrant. We think that his action amounted to intentionally offering illegal obstruction to his lawful apprehension within the meaning of sec. 225B of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time we think that the case does not call for severe punishment, and that it is sufficient for us to mark the illegality of the act of the accused person by inflicting a small fine.

2.

We therefore set aside the order of acquittal made by the Assistant Magistrate of Barisal and convict the accused person, Mir Sarwar Jan, of intentionally offering illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself, an offence punishable under sec. 225B of the Indian Penal Code, and we direct that Mir Sarwar Jan pay a fine of Rs. 20.