JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs on behalf of the Province of Bengal against an order of acquittal passed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Tippera. Thirteen accused were tried by a Magistrate of the first class at Brahmanbaria, Mr. Ghosal on charges under Ss. 147, 332, 225 and 224, Penal Code. He acquitted 8 of them and convicted the remainder as follows. Five of them Entajuddi, Karam Ali, Suraj Ali, Arshed Ali and Anjab Ali were convicted under S. 147/225, Penal Code, and sentenced each to one year's rigorous imprisonment. They were also all convicted under S. 225, Penal Code, and the same sentences were awarded to run concurrently. Mahabad Ali was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under S. 224, Penal Code. There was also an order in respect of the five accused convicted under S. 147, Penal Code, to execute bonds of Rs. 200 with one surety each for keeping the peace for one year under S.106, Criminal P. C. The same five accused who were convicted under S. 147, Penal Code, had also been charged under S. 332 of the said Code but were acquitted on that charge. 2. The prosecution case was that Protap Chandra Deb Majumdar (P.W. 7), officer-in-charge of Madhabpur thana within the district of Sylhet had gone into the jurisdiction of the neighbouring thana of Brahmanbaria in Bengal to a village Shemra to arrest the accused Mahabad Ali in connection with dacoity case No. 5 of October 1943 under S. 397, Penal Code, of Shemra within the Madhabpur thana. He had sent previously requisition for help to the officer-in-charge of the Brahmanbaria thana and Assistant Sub-Inspector Prafulla Kamal Roy (P.W. 8) had been sent with constables including Sriram Missir (P.W. 13) to render assistance. The officer-in-charge of the Madhabpur thana gave a Command Certificate Ex. 2 to Mojamal Ali, Ershadali (P. Ws. 1 and 2) and another constable Lal Mohan directing them to arrest Mahabad Ali mentioning the particulars of the case. This certificate was endorsed by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Brahmanbaria thana (P. W. 8) to the effect that Sriram Missir constable of his thana and Manindra Chandra Biswas, dafadar (P. W. 11) were to help in the said arrest in connection with the case mentioned in the Command Certificate. This certificate was endorsed by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Brahmanbaria thana (P. W. 8) to the effect that Sriram Missir constable of his thana and Manindra Chandra Biswas, dafadar (P. W. 11) were to help in the said arrest in connection with the case mentioned in the Command Certificate. The party of constables with the dafadar whose function was to identify the accused, he being a local man, went to the house of the accused Mahabad Ali which is in village Shemra and duly arrested him. While they were taking him back to the officer-in-charge, in passing through the house of the accused Entajuddi which is adjacent to that of the accused Mahabad Ali, the latter shouted for help and the whole body of accused attacked the police party with lathis and other weapons and succeeded in rescuing Mahabad Ali. In the course of the riot a gun was fired. The party of the officer-in-charge hearing the noise came up and made arrests of the supposed rescuers and rioters. They then came back to the Brahmanbaria thana where Sriram Missir (P. W. 13) lodged the first information. It is the evidence that this constable had actual charge of the accused Mahabad Ali at the time of the rescue having tied the accused with his pagri in the usual fashion. He also received some injuries. 3. Before dealing with the facts in detail, we may consider the point of law on which the learned Sessions Judge based his acquital. A contention had been raised in the trial Court that the charges could not be sustained as the constable Sriram Missir had not been properly authorised to arrest Mahabad Ali and, therefore, there could be no question of escape or rescue. The trial Court disposed of this point holding that the provisions of S. 54 (1), Criminal P. C., were very wide and in the circumstances justified the arrest by Sriram Missir. The learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and came to the conclusion that Sriram Missir was not properly authorised. In acquitting the accused he entirely overlooked the question that even if his view on this point was correct, it was still for consideration whether the accused were not at least guilty under S. 147, Penal Code, for their attack on the police having regard to the provisions of S. 99, Penal Code. In acquitting the accused he entirely overlooked the question that even if his view on this point was correct, it was still for consideration whether the accused were not at least guilty under S. 147, Penal Code, for their attack on the police having regard to the provisions of S. 99, Penal Code. In our opinion, however, the question presents no difficulty at all. The constables of Madhabpur thana (P.Ws. 1 and 2) were properly authorised to arrest the accused and this point is not disputed by Mr. Dutt appearing on behalf of all the accused in this appeal. These constables went with Sriram Missir and the dafadar and the whole party effected the arrest of Mahabad Ali. The fact that Sriram Missir himself at the time of the rescue was the constable actually holding the accused does not appear to affect the question at all. The constables who were duly authorised to arrest him did arrest him and he was at the time of the rescue clearly in lawful custody. The officer-in-charge of the Madhabpur thana had gone into the jurisdiction of the neighbouring thana and was fully empowered to do so under S. 58, Criminal P. C. He certainly could personally have arrested the accused. He gave a written order to his constables to effect that arrest and under S. 54 (1) ninthly, Criminal P. C., they were thus fully justified in making the arrest. The legal ground on which the learned Sessions Judge based his acquittal, therefore, fails. 4. Mr. Dutt has suggested that in this appeal if we take the present view we should not dispose of the matter ourselves but send the case back for rehearing of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. In our opinion, it is not necessary to take such a course in this case. The judgment of the trial Court might be described as a model judgment. The learned Magistrate has clearly set out the whole case, the evidence, the points for consideration and carefully considered the evidence as it affects each particular accused. Moreover, he has clearly throughout taken scrupulous care not to convict any of the accused unless the evidence against him was completely reliable and in consequence he has acquitted eight of the men before him although there was some evidence against each of them. Moreover, he has clearly throughout taken scrupulous care not to convict any of the accused unless the evidence against him was completely reliable and in consequence he has acquitted eight of the men before him although there was some evidence against each of them. We have ourselves read the evidence and find ourselves in entire concurrence with the view of the learned Magistrate at any rate so far as he has decided that the evidence is sufficient to establish the identity of the five accused other than Mahabad Ali and that they took a definite part in the riot to rescue Mahabad Ali from the police. We do not think, therefore, that any useful purpose will be served by sending this case back to be disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge. The charges have perhaps been sufficiently indicated by what has already been said. We may briefly catalogue them: (1) Charge under S. 332, Penal Code, for actual assault on Sriram Missir against five accused. The trial Court acquitted on this charge and there is no appeal in respect of this acquittal. (2) Charge under S. 225, Penal Code, against all the accused except Mahabad Ali for rescuing Mahabad Ali from the custody of Sriram Missir. (3) Similar charge against the same accused under S. 147, Penal Code, the common object being to assault Sriram Misser and others of his party and by means of criminal force to rescue Mahabad Ali from the lawful custody of the said constable and his party. (4) A charge under S. 224, Penal Code, against Mahabad Ali for escaping from the custody of Sriram Missir and his party. 5. The defence of the accused in the trial Court was to deny that Mahabad Ali had been rescued at all or that he was at his house that night. They contended that one Jamat Ali, the brother of the accused Mahabad Ali had been arrested by the police. It was denied that there was any occurrence at all in the house of Entajuddi and that the inmates of Jamat Ali's bari had driven the police off when they wrongly arrested him. It was further suggested that after this occurrence the Sub-Inspector and the rest of the party came up and made indiscriminate arrests, including arrests of some spectators who had been drawn to the place on hearing the commotion. It was further suggested that after this occurrence the Sub-Inspector and the rest of the party came up and made indiscriminate arrests, including arrests of some spectators who had been drawn to the place on hearing the commotion. The evidence as to the occurrence is given by the two constables Mojammal Ali and Ershad Ali (P. Ws. 1 and 2) as well as Sriram Missir (P. W. 13) and the dafadar (P. W. 11). As regards the two constables the trial Court has placed little or no reliance on their identification of the accused, mainly owing to the fact that there was considerable discrepancy between their identification when examined in-chief and when subsequently cross-examined. The dafadar Manindra was clearly in the best position to identify persons involved as he is a local man. He in fact identified all the five accused as well as Mahabad Ali whose cases are now before us. The constable Sriram Missir when examined in-chief only identified Entajuddi alias Kala Mia and Mahabad Ali but in cross-examination it was elicited that when he lodged the first information he had recognised the accused Karam Ali as the man who had actually struck him. 6. Debendra Chandra Roy Choudhury(P.W.3) a neighbour proves the occurrence generally but does not identify anybody. Chandra Kanta Biswas (P. W. 4) saw part of the occurrence, saw the police wading through water followed by two men with lathis but he did not go near. Chittaranjan Choudhury (P. W. 6) whose house is to the south of the house of Entajuddi saw two constables running towards his bari followed by some men armed with lathis and identified Anjab Ali, one of the present accused, and another Madhu (who was acquitted) as men who assaulted Sriram Missir. He took the latter to the police boat and heard about the details of the occurrence from him. Protap Chandra Deb Majumdar (P.W. 7) the officer-in-charge of the Madhabpur thana speaks to the preliminaries and to his giving the Command Certificate Ex. 2 to the constables. As to the actual occurrence he heard the gun and then went and made the arrest of 21 persons with arms, lathis, etc. He himself received an injury on the leg from a koch which he says was probably inflicted by accused Anjab Ali. 2 to the constables. As to the actual occurrence he heard the gun and then went and made the arrest of 21 persons with arms, lathis, etc. He himself received an injury on the leg from a koch which he says was probably inflicted by accused Anjab Ali. Prafulla Kamal Roy (P. W. 8) Asiastant Sub-Inspector of Brahmanbaria corroborates the evidence of P. W. 7 and says that when he came to the house of Entajuddi he saw the constables being assaulted by koch, lathi etc., and he identified Entajuddi, Anjab Ali, Suraj Ali, Arshed Ali the present accused as those who were among the assailants. The other evidence in the case is not of great importance. Sachindra Nath Banerjee (P. W. 5) is the Sub-Inspector who recorded the first information. Shovananda Dutta Manipuri (P. W. 10) was the victim of the original dacoity and had gone with the officer-in-charge of Madhabpur thana in connection with the arrest. Kamini Kumar Acharjee (P. W. 9) is a village doctor who gave first aid to the injured and Dr. S. F. Rahim (P. W. 12) Sub-Assistant Surgeon who gave evidence as to the injuries. 7. There cannot be in our opinion the slightest doubt that the occurrence took place substantially as the prosecution allege and that there is no substance in the defence version. The defence did call three witnesses to give some support to their story. Jamat Ali (D.W. 1) is the brother of Mahabad Ali who alleges that he was the person arrested and that he was released when one Joadali an accused in the trial Court came and identified him. He also asserts that his brother Mahabad Ali was not at home that night. It was elicited from Chandra Kanta Biswas (P. W. 4) that he heard about an hour after the occurrence that Jamat Ali had been assaulted. It was apparently a story given by some of the villagers. He himself knows nothing about it. Pandit Nath (D. W. 2) and Rajdhar Nath (D. W. 3) give some corroborative evidence to the story of Jamat Ali. The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that their story was a feeble attempt to create a little confusion. It was apparently a story given by some of the villagers. He himself knows nothing about it. Pandit Nath (D. W. 2) and Rajdhar Nath (D. W. 3) give some corroborative evidence to the story of Jamat Ali. The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that their story was a feeble attempt to create a little confusion. The defence has to admit that there was an occurrence approximately at the time stated by the prosecution and in the circumstances this is the best that they can make of the matter. We think there can be no doubt that this is a correct view to take. 8. It thus only remains to consider the evidence of identification as against each of the accused. This has been very carefully detailed by the trial Court. As we have said, he has not placed any substantial reliance on identification by the two constables of the Madhabpur thana (P. Ws. 1 and 2). He has placed reliance rather on identification by the dafadar (P. W. 11) and Sriram Missir (P. W. 13). (1) Entajuddi: He is identified by the two constables (P. Ws. 1 and 2), the Madhabpur thana Officer in charge (P. W. 7), P. W. 8, P. W. 11 and P. W. 13. It was in his house that the rescue took place. (2) Karam Ali : He is identified by the dafadar (P. W. 11) and it was also elicited from Sriram Missir (P. W. 13) that he saw him and recognized him at the thana at the time the first information was lodged. (3) Suraj Ali: He is identified by the dafadar (P. W. 11), Assistant Sub-Inspector (P. W. 8) says he saw him chasing the police party. In particular the dafadar says that this man was one of those armed with lathis, (4) Arshed Ali: The evidence against him is practically the same as that against Suraj Ali. (6) Anjab Ali: He is identified by the dafadar and also by Chittaranjan Chowdhury (P. W. 6) though the learned Magistrate has not relied on the latter's identification also of the other man Madhu. The thana Officer (P. W. 7) points to this accused as probably the one who had caused the injury on his leg. (6) Mahabad Ali: It is not necessary to discuss the question of his identification separately. The thana Officer (P. W. 7) points to this accused as probably the one who had caused the injury on his leg. (6) Mahabad Ali: It is not necessary to discuss the question of his identification separately. If that is not established the whole prosecution case must fail and we have already expressed our opinion on that. 9. As we have said, we agree entirely with the learned Magistrate in his view that the evidence catalogued above is sufficient to establish at any rate the identity of these accused and that they took an active part in the occurrence, the attack on the police to rescue Mahabad Ali which in fact succeeded. The result is that we hold that the charge under S. 225, Penal Code, is established against the first five accused as well as the charge of rioting tinder S. 147, Penal Code. It is clear that there was an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the police and rescuing Mahabad Ali and that the rescue succeeded. The evidence clearly justifies a conviction of Mahabad Ali himself under S. 224, Penal Code, of escape from the lawful custody. We accordingly convict Entajuddi, Karam Ali, Suraj Ali, Arshed Ali and Anjab Ali under S. 225/147, Penal Code. We sentence Entajuddi and Karam Ali to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently: Suraj Ali, Arshed Ali and Anjab Ali each to nine month's rigorous imprisonment under each of the Ss.147 and 225, Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. We convict Mahabad Ali under S. 224, Penal Code, and sentence him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court made an order binding down some of the accused under S. 106, Criminal P. C. We do not think it necessary to pass any such order. The accused-respondents who are on bail must surrender to their bail and serve out their sentences.