S K GHOSH Vs. MAHESWAR DEHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 134(l)(e) of the Constitution praying for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order passed on 29-101953, by a Division Bench of this Court, in a proceeding under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. The circumstances giving rise to an application of this kind are somewhat unusual and for a correct appreciation of the points raised in this application, it will be necessary to set out a few facts.

(2.) The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service and was, at the relevant time, the Superintendent of Police Mayurbhanj, A dacoity case was' registered at Morada Police Station on. 26-4-1951. During the investigation of that case one Maheshwar Dehuri and two other persons were arrested and brought to the police out-post at Rasgovindpur for interrogation. Maheshwar made certain confessional statements and was arrested at about 7 p.m. on that day by Shri K. M., Das, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and was handed over to one D. Gartia, the officer in charge of the Ras-govindpur Police outpost. Two constables were deputed to watch the accused who was sitting on the verandah of the outpost, but the accused escaped from custody at about 8 p.m. A case under Section 224, Penal Code was, therefore, registered, and 11 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 12 for the defence.

(3.) The prosecution, besides examining a number of witnesses relied upon Ext. 6, the confession made by the accused under Section 184, Cr. P. C., in that case and upon Ext. 9, the statement made by him under Section 342, Cr. P. C., in the Court of the Committing Magistrate enquiring into the case of dacoity. The trying Magistrate, Shri P. R. Chandra did not, however, chooso to rely on this evidence as he was of opinion that the fact of the arrest. of the accused had not been noted in the Station Diary maintained at the Rasgovindpur outpost. Nor had an F. I. R, been drawn up at that outpost immediately after the accused escaped from custody. The Magistrate, therefore, came to the conclusion that the 'arrest' of the accused which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 224, I. P. C., had not been established.