JUDGMENT Mulla, J. - This is an application in revision by one Ramain Rai who has been convicted by the Courts below of an offence u/s 353 I.P.C. The facts upon which the Applicant was put upon his trial before a Magistrate u/s 353 I.P.C. may briefly be stated as follows: On the 26th of April, 1941, a sub-inspector of the District Intelligence service, Dalsingar Singh by name, was proceeding by a train from Gorakhpur to some other place in search of a man named Har Bhajan Misra who was wanted for some offence under the Defence of India Rules. The sub-inspector was accompanied by a head-constable. On reaching Deoria the sub-inspector saw the Applicant Ramain Rai with another man named Rama Nand Bharti on the station platform The sub-inspector who has been examined by the prosecution says nothing as to who this Rama Nand Bharti is and why there should have been any suspicion against the Applicant merely on the ground that he was seen with Rama Nand Bharti on the station platform at Deoria, Even assuming that Rama Nand Bharti is some bad character or a revolutionary, still the point remains that there is nothing in law to prevent any person from being seen in the company of a revolutionary or a bad character on the platform of a railway station. That does not by any means constitute a cognizable offence The sub-inspector, however, alleges in his evidence that he suspected that the Applicant had some papers with him "connected with the Congress" It is not suggested and I do not think that it can reasonably be suggested that having papers "connected with the Congress" is a cognizable offence for which any person can be arrested without a warrant. The sub' inspector, however, thought that he was entitled t to follow the Applicant and to search his person presumably in order to recover the papers "connected with the Congress." He accordingly followed the Applicant to Bhatni where both of them got down and then the sub-inspector stopped the Applicant and wanted to search his person. The Applicant was carrying a jhola with him and the sub inspector admits that when the Applicant refused to allow a search of his person he caught hold of the Applicant's jhola and wanted to remove it by force. The Applicant was carrying a jhola with him and the sub inspector admits that when the Applicant refused to allow a search of his person he caught hold of the Applicant's jhola and wanted to remove it by force. It was then that the Applicant according to the evidence caught hold of the sub-inspector's hand. It is clear from the evidence that the Applicant was then thrown down by the sub-inspector and was also beaten because there is medical evidence to show that he received a wound on his head Over and above it all, he was prosecuted on a charge u/s 353 I.P.C. On these facts, curiously enough the learned trying Magistrate, who happens to be a Special Magistrate of the first class at Gorakhpur, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Applicant had assaulted and used criminal force to sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh who was a public servant in the execution of his duty and he was further of the opinion that this was a very high-handed action on the part of the Applicant who deserved a very severe punishment for it. From the judgment written by the learned Special Magistrate it is clear that he never applied his mind to the questions which really arose for determination in the case. What ii still more strange is that when the accused went up in appeal the learned II Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur who heard the appeal came to the conclusion that the sub-inspector's conduct was justified in law and in resisting him the Applicant was technically guilty of an offence u/s 353 I.P.C. The Applicant's conviction was therefore, maintained by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, though the sentence of nine mouths' rigorous imprisonment which had been passed upon him by the learned Special Magistrate was set aside and only a fine of Rs. 150 was imposed upon him, The Applicant has now come up in revision to this Court. 2. The questions which arise in this case are perfectly simple and they admit of only one answer. The first question is what authority had sub-inspector Dasingar Singh to search the person of the Applicant Ramain Rai? The answer is obviously "none". 150 was imposed upon him, The Applicant has now come up in revision to this Court. 2. The questions which arise in this case are perfectly simple and they admit of only one answer. The first question is what authority had sub-inspector Dasingar Singh to search the person of the Applicant Ramain Rai? The answer is obviously "none". The only provision of law which allows a police Officer to search a person is to be found in Section on 51 Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as follows: Whenever a person is arrested by a police-officer under a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail, but the person arrested cannot furnish bail and whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail, the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police-officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person and place in safe custody all articles, other than necessary wearing apparel, found upon him. 3. It is evident that this section comes into operation only after a person has been arrested either under a warrant or without a warrant. In the present case there is not the slightest suggestion in the evidence that sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh ever arrested the Applicant. In fact the evidence is quite clear that all that sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh wanted was to search the person of the Applicant and for that the law gave him no authority whatsoever until he had arrested the Applicant. The next question is; (sic) sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh have any authority to arrest the Applicant without a warrant? The learned II Additional Sessions Judge seems to have been under the impression that there was no harm done because the sub-inspector could have arrested the Applicant without a warrant and he could then have searched his person and the mere fact that he did not formally put the Applicant under arrest before searching his person was not of any importance. In my judgment the learned II Additional Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in taking that view. In my judgment the learned II Additional Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in taking that view. The only section which could have enabled sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh to arrest in Applicant without any warrant is Section 54 Code of Criminal Procedure The first clause of that section which could alone have applied to the facts of the case runs as follows: any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned; 4. It has already been stated above that all that sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh suspected was that the Applicant had some papers with him "connected with the Congress". It is evident that it is not the prosecution case that the Applicant had committed any cognizable offence or that any reasonable complaint had been made against him for having committed any such offence or that even the sub-inspector had a reasonable suspicion of his having committed a cognizable offence. Section 54, therefore, could not come into operation and I am constrained to observe that the conduct of sub-inspector Dalsingar Singh in this case was very high-handed and utterly without any justification in law. He could not have arrested the Applicant without a warrant and he could not have searched the Applicant's person under any provision of law. 5. The result, therefore, is that I allow this application and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant Ramain Rai. The fine, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.