Adami, J.:— These are two appeals by the Crown against an order of acquittal passed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Chapra against the orders of conviction by the Deputy Magistrate.
It appears that the Subdivisional Officer of Barrackpur issued a warrant returnable by the 17th May, 1927, against Ambika Raut. On the 27th May, 1927, the warrant was executed and Ambika was arrested but on arrest he was rescued by Binda Ahir and others. Ambika Raut was put on his trial on a charge under section 224 and convicted by the Deputy Magistrate, while, in a separate trial, Binda Ahir and other villagers were put on their trial under sections 353 and 225 and they were also convicted.
Two appeals were laid before the Sessions Judge and he allowed both of them on a preliminary point. Without going into the merits of the case he found that the returnable date of the warrant was the 17th May 1927 and that it had not been served until that date was passed, and therefore he held the warrant had no validity and that the accused persons in each case could not be convicted. It is obvious that the learned Sessions Judge in both cases failed to consider the provision of sub-section (2) of section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that “every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until it is executed.” The warrant in Ambika's case had not been cancelled and therefore it was valid when it was executed.
The order of acquittal must be set aside and the record in each case must be sent back to the Sessions Judge in order that the appeals may be reheard, and an order passed according to law.
Wort, J.:— I agree.
Conviction set aside.