JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner was convicted by the Deputy Magistrate under sec. 225B of the Indian Penal Code, because he offered resistance to the lawful apprehension by Tara Nasya Chowkidar of a man, named Tunia Nasya, and has been sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. A rule was issued by this Court on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside on the ground that the arrest was illegal and what we have to decide is whether the arrest was lawful or not. 2. The chowkidar received a written order from the officer in charge of the police-station to make this arrest; and the question is whether the arrest would have been legal under secs. 55 and 56, Cr.P.C. The Deputy Magistrate held that it came within the terms of sec. 55. On application to the Sessions Judge, he held that it came under sec. 56. 3. It appears to us that the case comes under sec. 56. The point to be decided is whether a chowkidar is an officer subordinate to an officer in charge of a police-station within the meaning of sec. 56. Now, a chowkidar is unguestionably an officer and it seems to us impossible after reading the chowkidar's duties as set out in sec. 39 of the Village Chowkidari Act to say that he is not subordinate to the officer in charge of a police-station. It appears to us he is, therefore, within the plain meaning of the words "an officer subordinate." We may notice that whereas in secs. 54, 57 to 61 and so on, which deal with the duties of ordinary police-officers, the word "police" is distinctly mentioned, in sec. 56, the word "police" is not prefixed to the words "officer subordinate." The difference appears to us to be a marked one and to be intentional; and we do not see any reason why we should not observe this difference. An "officer subordinate," therefore, as mentioned in sec. 56, is not limited as far as we can see, to a police officer. The arrest by the chowkidar would have been covered by that section and therefore the arrest would have been legal. Hence the applicant's resistance to the arrest was an offence under sec. 225B. We hold, therefore, that the conviction is right and the rule must be discharged.