The petitioners have moved against the order of their conviction passed under S. 353 of the I. P. C., sentencing each of them to rigorous im­prisonment for a period of two months. The pro­secution case is that on 18-5-1955, at about 7-30 P.M., Sri Subodh Chandra Das. Sub Inspector of Police attached to Golaghat Police Station, was on patrol duty with a section of the armed Police. Ho got a report that some public nuisance was being created by several drunkards in the town area, and lie was told that after creating disturbance, those people had boarded a bus and were fleeing from the locality, The Sub Inspector followed those persons, who are said to be the petitioners, and he caught up with them near the gate of one Ratan Singh, and when he started questioning them for the purpose of making an arrest, it appears that the petitioners re­sisted the officer and caused certain injuries on his person. The allegation further was that they snatch­ed away the officer's shoulder badge, one fountain pen and one wrist watch, from his person, but this part of the prosecution story has not been accepted by the two Courts below, and, therefore, the charge under S. 379, I. P. C., against the petitioners could not be sustained. (2) The Court of appeal below appears to have thought that under S. 34, paragraph (6) of the Police Act, the Police officer had not only the right but it was his duty to arrest the petitioners. Section 34 empowers the Police officer to take into custody, without a warrant, any person who, within his view, commits any of such offences as being found drunk or riotous or incapable of taking care of himself. The allegation in this case is that the complainant S. C. Das was informed by one Kamakhya Prasad (P.W. 6) that there was a quarrel between one Put-nameshi (P.W. 5) and some persons, meaning the petitioners, and that a nuisance was being created by those persons. It was on this information that the complainant pursued the petitioners, who were then travelling in a bus, and wanted to effect their arrest, when the incident complained of happened. It was on this information that the complainant pursued the petitioners, who were then travelling in a bus, and wanted to effect their arrest, when the incident complained of happened. It is, therefore, quite obvious, on the prosecution case itself, that the occurrence had not happened within the view of the Police officer concerned, and, as such, the officer had no power to effect the ar­rest of the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, was not justified in observing that, in the circumstances, the complainant had any lawful authority under S. 34 of the Police Act, to effect an arrest even assuming that they might have been guilty of some riotous behaviour against Purnarnesbi Teli some time earlier. Purnameshi Teli, if he had any grievance against them, could as well lodge a complaint and proceed against the petitioners ac­cording to law. Sec. 34 of the Police Act did not give any authority to the Police officer to pursue the petitioners and arrest them, even though no such of­fence as alleged or contemplated by S. 34 of the Act was said to have been committed within his view. It is true that the doctor found, on later exami­nation, that two of the petitioners, namely, Mahen­dra Singh and Bhim Teli, were under the influence of liquor, but this fact, by itself, does not show that they were actually drunk or that they had commit­ted any riotous act at the time when the Police Officer intended to question them or to effect their arrest, except to resist the attempt of that officer in arresting them ov ill seeking to detain them. If therefore, the petitioners resisted the questioning by the complainant or the attempt to arrest them, in course of which the complainant is alleged to have received some injuries on his person, the petitioners cannot be held guilty of any offence within the meaning of Sec. 353 or Sec. 352, I. P. C. In my opinion, the conviction is unjustified and cannot be upheld. The order of conviction and sentence must, therefore, be set aside and the Rule made absolute. HD/V.B.B. Conviction set aside.