MOHAMMAD KAZI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the first accused Mohammed Kazi was charged with an offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, with intentionally offering resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or escaping from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence; and the other accused were charged with an offence under Section 22b, that is to say, with intentionally offering resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescuing any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence. All of them were also charged under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, the common object alleged being to rescue Mohammad Kazi from lawful custody.

(2.) Now, the facts of the case may shortly be recapitulated as follows: The accused Mohammad Kazi was suspected of being in possession of opium contrary to the Opium Act, and certain persons were put forward by the Excise Officer as apparent purchasers of opium from the accused No. 1 Mohammad Kazi, and in pursuance of such apparent purchases, certain balls of black substance changed hands. Thereupon the first accused Mohammad Kazi was arrested by the Excise Officer. On the way to the place where the Sampan was moored, the Excise Officer and the others who were with him were attacked by a body of men who were carrying lathis; and that body of men included the accused other than Mohammad Kazi. The result was that the accused No. I was rescued by force.

(3.) A case was then made against the first accused Mohammad Kazi under Section 9 of the Opium Act, alleging that he was unlawfully in possession of opium. He was convicted. On revision by this Court, that conviction was set aside on the ground that the substances, which Mohammad Kazi purported to sell to those persons who were put forward by the Excise Officer, was not in fact opium; the black substance which was sold did contain a very small percentage of opium; but we came to the conclusion, that what he had sold and had been in possession of, was not in fact opium within the meaning of the Act; and consequently the conviction against Mohammad Kazi under Section 9 of the Act was set aside.