Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Section 224 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 225 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Santa Bandu vs Emperor on 6 April, 1909
"The warrant having been duly signed on authorisation of
the District Munsiff, the only other question is whether
on the facts as contended by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the offence under Section 225-B, I.P.C., has
been made out or not. The facts, as already stated, are
that after arrest, the petitioner refused to accompany
Crl. R.P.No.1748/2006 7
the process server. The process server afterwards went
away to court. Whether mere refusal to accompany the
process server will amount to escape or attempt to escape
from lawful custody is the question-- 'Santa Singh v.
Emperor' AIR 1933 Lah 128 (1) (A) is relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner where it has been held
that refusal to accompany would not amount to escape or
attempt to escape. With respect to the learned Judges, I
am unable to agree with their opinion giving the natural
meaning to the word "escape" which means getting free,
getting clear away from prison or person, the act of the
petitioner would undoubtedly, in my opinion, fall within the
clause "attempt to escape". His refusal to accompany him
necessarily means that he will not go with him and that
the process server will have to leave him and go unless
force is used. It is, in my opinion, an attempt to escape
within the meaning of Section 225-B. Though the charge
is only for escape, I find him guilty of attempt to escape.
But this alteration in the conviction does not in any way
affect the conviction of the petitioner under Section
225-B, I.P.C. In the result, the petitioner will be
convicted for the offence under Section 225-B not for
escape, but for attempt to escape."
Public Prosecutor vs Nellore Audinarayana Reddi on 2 September, 1932
8. The technicality of escape from lawful custody
and its impact on sentence was considered by the Madras
High Court in Public Prosecutor v. Nellore Audinarayana Reddi
[ AIR 1933 Madras 278], in which it is held that where a
judgment debtor who was left in the custody of the
process server on his payment of detention batta for two
days did not follow the process server but made an escape
though he appeared in Court in the third day, the offence
was of escape from lawful custody and that the fact that
there was no order in writing for detention was immaterial
but the offence being only a technical one, a nominal
punishment would meet the ends of justice. Considering
Crl. R.P.No.1748/2006 10
the facts and circumstances of the case and the character
of the offender, I am of the opinion that sentence of fine
is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and I modify the
sentence as follows:
1