JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule, calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why the conviction of and sentences passed on the Petitioners should not be set aside. The Petitioner No. 1 has been convicted under secs. 225 and 3/1 5/1 3/4, the Petitioner No. 2 under secs. 225, and 353 and the Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 under sec. 225 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have each been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and each of the Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 a fine of Rs. 30. 2. The learned pleader who appears on their behalf states that his clients have committed no offence, because the persons whom they rescued had not been legally arrested by the daffadar who was the complainant in this case. The daffadar appears to have arrested one Radha Nath Dey, against whom a complaint of theft had been made by one Jadu Bigdi. But he was apparently not justified in arresting Radha Nath Dey, because, under sec. 39, cl. 2 of the Act VI of 1870, B. C., he was only entitled to arrest a person for theft committed in his presence. It is clear that the theft in the present case had been completed before he came up, and the offence is not a continuing one, as contended by the Deputy Magistrate. Therefore the daffadar had no right to arrest Radha Nath Dey. In these circumstances he was not engaged in the lawful execution of his duty when the Petitioners came and rescued Radha Nath Dey and threatened to beat the complainant. 3. We therefore set aside the convictions and sentences and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded. The rule is made absolute.