Judgment :- 1. The three revision petitioners were tried by the First Class Magistrate, Ponkunnam for offences under S.224, 225 and 332 read with S.114 I.P.C. The first petitioner was convicted under S.224 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioners 2 & 3 were convicted under S.225 read with R.114 & S.332 and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment under each court. They appealed to the Sessions Judge, Kottayam who while maintaining the sentence, altered the conviction of the first petitioner into one under S.225B, IPC. and to S.225B read with S.114 and S.353 in the case of petitioners 2 & 3. Dissatisfied with the result of the appeal, the petitioners have now approached this court in revision. 2. The facts of the case are simple. It is alleged that the first accused is the judgment-debtor in O.S. 381 of 1950 on the file of the Kottayam Munsiff's Court which was being executed in the Kanjirappally Munsiff's Court. The Munsiff deputed an amin (Pw.1) and two process servers (Pws. 2 and 3) to arrest one "Ouseph Ulahannan of Puthuparambil, Kanjirapally Pakuthy, Kanjirapally Kara". On 9-1-1959 at 11 A. M. the first accused was arrested by Pw.1 assisted by Pws. 2 and 3 from near the culvert at Kanjirappally junction. The accused resisted and while he was being taken to the court accused 2 and 3 forcibly released accused 1 from the hold of Pw. 2 and as a result accused 1 escaped from the lawful custody of the Amin and the process servers. 3. The accused denied the charge. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the first accused is not the judgment-debtor in O.S. 381 of 1950 and the arrest of the first accused is illegal as the name and address given in the warrant are not those of the first accused. The warrant is for the arrest of Auseph Ulahannan of Puthuparambil, Kanjirappalli Kara, Kanjirapalli Pakuthy. The accused has adduced evidence that he is known as O.J. Ulahannan of Orithyil, Thambalakad Kara, Kanjirappalli Pakuthy. He has produced his Motor Driving Licence (with his photo attached) wherein he is described as O.J. Ulahannan of Orithyil, Thambalakad Kara, Kanjirappalli. The house name is different, the kara is different and the name itself is different Ext. D2 is a sale deed taken by the first accused where he is described in similar terms and Ext. He has produced his Motor Driving Licence (with his photo attached) wherein he is described as O.J. Ulahannan of Orithyil, Thambalakad Kara, Kanjirappalli. The house name is different, the kara is different and the name itself is different Ext. D2 is a sale deed taken by the first accused where he is described in similar terms and Ext. D3 is a post card, sent to him by the clerk of the advocate engaged by him in another case where his address is given as Joseph Ulahannan, Orithyil, Kanjirappalli. The burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove that the O. J. Ulahannan of Orithyil of Thambalakad and the person mentioned in the warrant are one and the same person. The best person to solve the controversy would have been the decree-holder in O.S. 381 of 1950 at whose instance the warrant was issued. The learned Sessions Judge takes the first accused to task for not examining the decree-holder to prove that he is not the judgment-debtor in the case. This view of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous. It is but elementary that in a criminal case the burden of proving the necessary facts to constitute an offence is always on the prosecution and It never shifts. The prosecution has to prove the positive fact that the accused is the person described in the warrant and it cannot rest content with asking the accused to establish his innocence by disproving his alleged identity. Ext. P10 an earlier warrant issued in the same case where the same description is given as in Exts. P1 to P3 and which is alleged to have been served on the accused is the main item of evidence relied upon by the lower courts to prove the identity of the accused. The warrant was produced in evidence only on 29-6-1960 after the accused was examined under S.342 Criminal Procedure Code on 23-6-1960 and no opportunity was given to the accused to explain that circumstance against him. The late production of Ext. P10 has seriously prejudiced the accused. Moreover in that instance also the arrested person had escaped from custody and no action seems to have been taken against him. the arrest illegal and the attempt of the accused to resist an illegal arrest does not make him liable to punishment under S.225B. In Debi Singh v. Queen Empress (ILR. P10 has seriously prejudiced the accused. Moreover in that instance also the arrested person had escaped from custody and no action seems to have been taken against him. the arrest illegal and the attempt of the accused to resist an illegal arrest does not make him liable to punishment under S.225B. In Debi Singh v. Queen Empress (ILR. XXVIII Calcutta 399) where the warrant was issued against "Debi Singh son of Gunraj Singh" and it was revealed that the arrested person's father had a different name, the conviction of the accused under S.225B and 353 for escaping from lawful custody after using criminal force was set aside on the ground that the warrant of arrest which he disobeyed was not a valid warrant. It was held in that case that "A warrant of arrest which contains a wrong description of the accused is not a valid warrant, and a conviction under S.225B and 353 of the Penal Code of such accused person who resisted or used criminal force upon his being arrested under such warrant, is illegal". The warrant should not only enable the officer to arrest the right person but the person whom the officer proposes to arrest should also know from the warrant whether he is the person ordered to be arrested. 5. As for the case against accused 2 and 3 rescuing the first accused from the custody of Munsiff's Court employees even with the knowledge that they were officers of court would not expose the accused to punishment if the arrest itself was illegal. However in this case the second and the third accused are not proved to have had any previous acquaintance with Pws.1 to 3. The arrest was effected near the Kanjirappally junction and it is not shown that accused 2 and 3 were present at the time. It was only at some distance away in front of a hotel called 'Silver Cafe' that they interfered It is also noteworthy that these two persons are not shown to be in any manner interested in accused 1 or even acquainted with him. It was only at some distance away in front of a hotel called 'Silver Cafe' that they interfered It is also noteworthy that these two persons are not shown to be in any manner interested in accused 1 or even acquainted with him. The learned Sessions Judge picked holes in the defence of accused 2 and 3 and took them to task for not setting up a definite plea that they never knew who Pws.1 to 3 were No accused should be asked to prove his innocence and in this case it could be spelled out from the prosecution evidence itself that accused 2 and 3 could not have known either that Pws.1 to 3 were officers of court or that accused 1 had been arrested by them under a process of the court. 6. In the absence of evidence that the person to be arrested is correctly described in the warrant and that accused 2 and 3 knew Pws.1 to 3 to be public servants no offence is made out. Hence I am compelled to set aside the conviction and acquit all the accused Allowed.