JUDGMENT P.N. Goyal, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 28-7-1973 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, acquitting the 7 respondent of the-offences punishable under Sections 218, 323' and 342 of the I. P.C. 2. In the District of Agra there is a village Narkhi. There is Police Station in this village. Lokendrapal Singh, P. W. 1 is a native of this village. He carries on cultivation. He has a tube-well in his fields. On 20-6-1971 after night-fall he was returning from his tube-well after having worked in his fields almost throughout the day. A part of his body was covered with lot of mud. He was putting on a baniyan, a kurta thereon, an underwear and a towel thereon. He was keeping his dhoti on his shoulders. He was putting on a wrist watch and carrying a sum of Rs. 64.00 in his pocket. 3. Fateh Alam Khan, respondent No. 1, was Station Officer at Police Station, Narkhi. Shiv Nandan Singh, respondent No. 1 was Sub-Inspector,. Gaya Dhish Gupta, respondent No. 3, was Head Constable, Krishna Kumar, Raja Ram, Laxmi Narain and Kesari Singh respondents Nos. 4 to 7 were Constables at the said Police Station. Fateh Alam Khan, along with Shiv Nandan Singh, Kesari Singh and Laxmi Narain was returning from village Baishan Garhi where he had gone to investigate Crime No. 17 under S. 457, I. P. C. when Lokendrapal Singh crossed the bridge of river Sarsa, he was challenged by Fateh Alam Khan but he made no response. Fateh Alam Khan then asked him to give out his name. 'He did not respond. Consequently Fateh Alam Khan and his companions arrested him and took him to the Police Station through the abadi of village Narkhi. Some persons of village Narkhi reached at the Police Station. Then Lokendrapal Singh was released. A document came into existence at the Police Station. It is Ex. Ka-1. 4. Lokendrapal Singh is related to Sri Om Prakash Singh, an ex-Minister of U. P. State. On 21-6-1971 Lokendrapal Singh went to Sri Om Prakash Singh at Lucknow but he could not meet him. Then he left an application at his residence. The matter was then investigated into and ultimately the respondents were challenged. 5. It is Ex. Ka-1. 4. Lokendrapal Singh is related to Sri Om Prakash Singh, an ex-Minister of U. P. State. On 21-6-1971 Lokendrapal Singh went to Sri Om Prakash Singh at Lucknow but he could not meet him. Then he left an application at his residence. The matter was then investigated into and ultimately the respondents were challenged. 5. The case of the prosecution was that at the Sirsa bridge on being challenged, Lokendrapal Singh had immediately given out his name, that one of the Constables told Fateh Alam Khan that he was Lokendrapal Singh, that thereupon Fateh Alam Khan used abusive language saying that let him be a relation of the Minister, that Sri Lokendrapal Singh asked Fateh Alam Khan to behave like a gentleman, that' thereupon Fateh Alam Khan gave him 3 or 4 slaps and snatched his wrist watch, that' Shiv Nandan Singh, respondent took out Rs. 64.00 from his pocket, that on the direction of Fateh Alam Khan, Laxmi Narain and Kesari Singh respondents tied his hands with his dhoti, that the smell of liquor was badly coming out from the mouths of Fateh Alam Khan, Shiv Nandan Singh, Laxmi Narain and Kesari Singh, respondents, that in the way Ambika Prasad. P. W. 3 met them, that he asked the respondents as to why they had arrested him, that he was told to remain quiet, that in the village Abadi Kshetrapal Singh, P. W. 2 first cousin of Lokendrapal Singh, Babu Ram, Sagar Butt and Brahmbir met, that Kshetrapal asked Fateh Alam Khan to indicate the reason for arresting Lokendrapal Singh, that Fateh Alam Khan told him that he was teaching him how to behave, that at the Police Station Fateh Alam Khan asked Lokendrapal Singh whether he had come to his senses and whether he would further teach him how to behave, that Lokendrapal Singh remained quiet, that thereafter under the directions of Fateh Alam Khan, Lokendrapal Singh was put in the police lock up, that later on Kshetrapal and Netrapal, P. Ws. 2 and 4 were told that Lokendrapal Singh could be released, if he tendered apology, that thereafter a written apology was given and then Lokendrapal Singh was released. 6. Raja Ram and Krishna Kumar, respondents were at the Police Station, Krishna Kumar made Lokendrapal Singh to sit on a Chabutara inside the campus of the Police Station. 2 and 4 were told that Lokendrapal Singh could be released, if he tendered apology, that thereafter a written apology was given and then Lokendrapal Singh was released. 6. Raja Ram and Krishna Kumar, respondents were at the Police Station, Krishna Kumar made Lokendrapal Singh to sit on a Chabutara inside the campus of the Police Station. Fateh Alam Khan sat near him on a chair and questioned him whether he had come to his senses. Raja Ram is said to have put Lokendrapal Singh into the lock up. 7. It appears that there was no substance in the allegation that the wrist watch and Rs. 64.00 in cash were snatched from the person of Lokendrapal Singh. Therefore no charge in this respect was framed. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 213 and 323, I. P. C. 8. The defence of the respondents was that as Lokendrapal Singh did not give a satisfactory account of himself, he was arrested and taken to the Police Station and that when his identity was fully known he was released immediately at the Police Station. It was also contended that he was not put in the lock up. It: was further contended that the respondents other than Krishna Kumar and Raja Ram had not taken liquor as alleged. 9. The prosecution examined Lokenpal Singh, Kshetrapal, Ambika Prasad, Netrapal Singh and Babu Ram, P. Ws. 1 to 5. One Phool Chand Misra was examined as Court witness No. 1 in whose presence documents. Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-31 were written out at the Police Station. There was little difference as to the time of arrest of Lokendrapal Singh at the canal bridge. According to the prosecution it was 8 p.m. According to the defence it was 9 p.m. This difference is not of much importance in the instant case. 10. Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-31 were written out at the Police Station. There was little difference as to the time of arrest of Lokendrapal Singh at the canal bridge. According to the prosecution it was 8 p.m. According to the defence it was 9 p.m. This difference is not of much importance in the instant case. 10. On an appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations of the prosecution were not true, that Lokendrapal Singh in spite of being challenged more than once did not disclose his identity at the canal bridge, that Fateh Alam Khan was justified in arresting him at the canal bridge, that Lokendrapal was not assaulted by any of the respondents, that he was not kept in the lock up, that none of the respondents was under the influence of liquor, that the documents were not obtained by the respondents under coercion and that in the circumstances of the case the respondents had not committed any offence. 11. The learned counsel for the State assailed the order of acquittal on 2 grounds. 12. He first of all contended that the Additional Sessions Judge had not dealt with the evidence punishable under S. 218, I. P. C. A look at the charge will reveal that in the general diary of Police Station Narkhi incorrect time of arrival at the Police Station was mentioned in report No. 26, that in this report the factum of arrest of Lokendrapal Singh was not mentioned and that it was also not mentioned therein that Lokendrapal Singh was kept in the lock up. 13. The Entry No. 26 was recorded at 9-30 p.m. It is in the handwriting of Shiv Nandan Singh, respondent No. 2. It was signed by Fateh Alam Khan, copy is Ex. Ka-7. The entry clearly shows that Lokendrapal Singh was arrested at about 9 p.m. at the canal bridge for not disclosing the identity despite being challenged. The entry further shows that Lokendrapal was brought to the Police Station where he was ultimately released on tendering apology in writing in the presence of Netrapal Singh and others. In this way it is not correct to say that in the general diary entry there was no mention of bringing Lokendrapal Singh to the Police Station and his release from the Police Station. 14. In this way it is not correct to say that in the general diary entry there was no mention of bringing Lokendrapal Singh to the Police Station and his release from the Police Station. 14. With regard to the time of arrest there are 2 pieces of evidence which indicate the Lokendrapal was arrested at about 9 p.m. and not at 8 p.m. and that he reached the Police Station at about 9-30 p.m. The first piece of evidence is the statement of Phool Chand Misra, C. W. 1. He clearly stated that he was sitting at the Chaupal at about 9-30 p.m. and at that time the police was taking Lokendrapal Singh towards the Police Station. The other piece of evidence is the document, Ex. K-l which bears the signature of Lokendrapal Singh as well as his cousin Krishnapal Singh. In the circumstances it is not correct to say that incorrect time was mentioned in the entry of general diary. 15. With regard to keeping Lokendrapal Singh in the lock up, there is a clear finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that he was not kept in the lock up. 16. In the result all the facts which were the basis of the acquittal under S. 218, I. P. C. were not made out. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the respondent of the said charge. No doubt he did not deal with this charge specifically, but he dealt with various facts which were the basis of this charge. 17. The next1 contention of the learned counsel for the State is that Fateh Alam Khan and his companions were not justified in arresting Lokendrapal Singh, that they were not justified in taking him to the Police Station, and then release him there and that, therefore, they were guilty of the offence punishable under S. 342, I.P.C. 18. The learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the provisions of Sections 54 and 57 of the Cr. P. C., 1898 which is applicable to the instant case. He has also placed reliance on 2 cases. Deoki Nandan v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Lah 422 and Gopal Naidu v. Crown, AIR 1923 Mad 523 (2) (FB). 19. It may immediately be stated that the provisions of Sections 54 and 57 are not applicable to the instant case. P. C., 1898 which is applicable to the instant case. He has also placed reliance on 2 cases. Deoki Nandan v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Lah 422 and Gopal Naidu v. Crown, AIR 1923 Mad 523 (2) (FB). 19. It may immediately be stated that the provisions of Sections 54 and 57 are not applicable to the instant case. It is not the case of the respondents that Lokendrapal Singh was arrested because of the provisions contained in Sections 54 and 57. Section 54 enumerates the cases in which a Police Officer can arrest without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. There are 9 clauses in this section. None of them is applicable to the present case. Section 57 empowers a Police Officer to arrest a person in two contingencies - (1) when a person has committed a non-cognisable offence in the presence of a Police Officer and (2) if he is accused of committing a non-cognisable offence provided he refused to give out his name and residence to the Police Officer. In the present case it: is no parties case that Lokendrapal was seen committing a non-cognisable offence by any of the respondents. It is also no parties case that there was a complaint against Lokendrapal Singh, that he had committed a non-cognisable offence and then Fateh Alam Khan had called upon him to give his name and residence. Therefore, the provisions of S. 57 are not attracted to the present case. 20. In this connection averment may be made to the case of Deoki Nandan v. Emperor cited above. In this case a Head Constable arrested some persons who were sitting in a lorry because they did not give out their names and addresses. The arrest was said to be justified on the basis of the provisions of S. 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was found that the said section did not confer any power of arrest and, therefore, the arrest was wrongful. Averment was made to S. 57, Cr. P. C. also. It was observed that on the facts of the case S. 57 was not applicable. It will thus be noticed that there is nothing in this case to help the appellant. 21. According to the learned counsel for the respondents Lokendrapal Singh was arrested in accordance with the provisions of S. 55 (1) (b). P. C. also. It was observed that on the facts of the case S. 57 was not applicable. It will thus be noticed that there is nothing in this case to help the appellant. 21. According to the learned counsel for the respondents Lokendrapal Singh was arrested in accordance with the provisions of S. 55 (1) (b). This section provides that any Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station may arrest without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant any person within the limits of his Police Station who has no ostensible means of subsistence or who cannot give satisfactory account of himself. Stress has been laid on the latter portion "or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself." In the present case there is a clear finding of the Court below that prior to his arrest' at the canal bridge Lokendrapal Singh did not respond to the challenge by the respondent. He did not give out his name. It will be noticed that after having worked in his fields throughout the day there was sufficient mud on the person of Lokendrapal Singh. He was not even putting on his clothes properly. Therefore, Fateh Alam Khan felt suspicious and consequently arrested him. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the arrest was illegal. 22. As the initial arrest cannot be held to be illegal, the respondents can- not be said to be guilty of the offence-under S. 342, I. P. C. The respondent could easily take him to the Police Station and after his identity was well ascertained, Lokendrapal Singh could be released at the Police Station. The Police Station is not far off from the place of arrest. It was pointed out that in the village Abadi Fateh Alam Khan was told the name of Lokendrapal Singh. Therefore, it was urged that Fateh Alam Khan could have immediately released him in the Abadi of the village and should not have taken him to the Police Station. But the learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out any provision which laid down that once a person had been legally arrested, he should be released even in the way to the Police Station. The Station Officer will release such a person only if he is satisfied about his identity. But the learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out any provision which laid down that once a person had been legally arrested, he should be released even in the way to the Police Station. The Station Officer will release such a person only if he is satisfied about his identity. Therefore, he can take such a person to the Police Station and when he feels satisfied about the identity of the person arrested he can release him at the Police Station. 23. In view of what has been discussed above, it cannot be said that Lokendrapal Singh was in wrongful confinement and the respondents were guilty of the evidence punishable under S. 342, Cr. P. C. 24. In the case of Gopal Naidu v. Crown cited above there is no observation which helps the appellant. In this case a person in drunken condition was creating disturbance in a Street of the village. The two Head Constables arrested him and took him to the Police Station in order that his name or residence be ascertained, despite the fact that one of the Constables knew him from before. The action of the Head Constable was sought to be justified on the basis of the provisions of S. 21 of Madras Police Act. It was held that this section did not protect the Head Constable because the power of arrest had been specifically defined in the Cr. P. C. In this connection it was observed that the two Head Constables could not arrest the drunken man creating nuisance in the village Street under Sections 54 and 57 of the Code. This case also does not help the appellant H because in the present case Fateh Alam Khan was justified in arresting Lokendrapal Singh under the provisions of S. 55 (1) (b). 25. It would be appropriate to mention that if Lokendrapal Singh had not been a bona fide resident of village -Narkhi and his identity could not have been ascertained at the Police Station, Fateh Alam Khan would have been justified in taking proceeding against him tinder S. 109, Cr. P. C. But as Lokendrapal Singh was a bona fide resident of village Narkhi, this course was not open to him. The provisions of Section 55 (1) (b) are similar to the provisions of S. 109 (b), Cr. P. C. 26. P. C. But as Lokendrapal Singh was a bona fide resident of village Narkhi, this course was not open to him. The provisions of Section 55 (1) (b) are similar to the provisions of S. 109 (b), Cr. P. C. 26. No other point was urged on behalf of the appellant. 27. For all what has been found above, there is no merit in this appeal. The order of acquittal cannot therefore be set aside. 28. Appeal is dismissed.