Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Queen-Empress vs Dalip And Ors. on 18 February, 1896

Rameshwar vs Emperor on 1 May, 1934

4. The next ground which was argued did not appear in the grounds of revision but was argued before the lower Court. This was that the names of the constables who went to make the arrest should have been endorsed on the requisition. There is no provision in Section 56 for any such procedure. That section states that the document - an order in writing - shall be "delivered" to the officer required to make the arrest, and further in Section 54, ninthly, it is provided that a police officer may arrest any person for whose arrest a requisition has been received from another police officer. Both these sections specify exactly what are the particulars which are required in the requisition but they do not specify that one of the particulars required is the name of the officer making the arrest. There is therefore no section which lays down that there must be such an endorsement on a requisition. Learned Counsel referred to a ruling reported in Queen Empress v. Dalip (1896) 18 All. 246. That was a case in which a Magistrate had issued a warrant under Section 114, Criminal P.C., for the arrest of Dalip and warrant was copied in the thana and a copy was given to certain police officers to execute as a warrant. In view of the provisions in Section 77, Criminal P.C., and other sections of the Code it was held that it was not sufficient for the police officers effecting the arrest to be in possession of merely a copy and not of the original document. In the present case there is no such question as the police officers who went to make the arrest were in possession of the original requisition and not a copy. I find nothing irregular in tke circumstances of the arrest. This application in revision is therefore dismissed. The applicant must surrender to his bail and undergo the rest of his sentence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madho And Anr. vs Emperor on 13 August, 1917

In the case of Queen-Empress v. Dalip 18 A. 240: A. W. N. (1896) 48: 8 Ind. Dec. (N. S.) 871. which was in some respects similar to the present case, it was held that the words "'in the discharge of his" duty as such public servant" in Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code mean in the discharge of a duty imposed by law on such public servant in the particular case. If the order issued by the District Magistrate in August 1914 ceased to have effect after the expiry of two months from the date of issue, the constable in carrying out the order could not be said to have been acting in the discharge of a duty imposed by law on him. The learned Government Pleader has referred to Section 23 of the Police Act (V of 1861) and has contended that it was the duty of the constable to obey and carry out the order issued by the District Magistrate, no matter whether that order was justified by law or not. The answer to this contention is afforded by the language of Section 23 itself, which provides that it shall be the duty of every Police Officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority. The word "lawfully" governs both "orders" and "warrants", so that an order which a subordinate Police Officer is bound to obey must be an order. which was lawfully issued. If the order passed by the District Magistrate could not be lawfully issued by him, it was not the duty of the constable to obey that order. Therefore when he was carrying out that, order, he cannot be said to have been discharging his duty as a public servant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1