Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This appeal under Sec.378(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) has been filed by the State of Bihar against an order of acquittal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Mangan Mian, an accused in Gopalpur P S. Case No. 7/1980 was arrested by one Shashi Bhushan Sharma, Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station on 10-6-1980 at village Panchgachia under Gopalpur police station in the district of Bhagalpur. Later on, he was forwarded with a written report to the Gopalpur police station and the respondent who was the officer in charge of the said police station received him on 11-6-1980 at 10.00 a m. On the basis of the said written report, Gopalpur P. S. Case No. 2(6)/80 was registered against the accused under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act and under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the Penal Code) 3. The further case of the prosecution is that the respondent kept the said Mangan Mian in lock-up and did not examine the person of the said accused nor did he enquire from him as to how he received injuries as required under Bihar Police Manual Rules 238 and 221. It is said that the respondent left Gopalpur police station for investigation of the case on the same day at 11.00 a.m. The respondent returned to the police station at 23.00 hours on the same day as shown in the station diary No. 155 of the date. 4. The allegation against the respondent is that he without sending him for the medical aid forwarded the said accused to Bhagalpur court on the next date i.e., 12-6-1980 at 08 05 hours. The said accused Mangan Mian was produced before the sub-divisional Magistrate, Naugachia at Bhagalpur and was remanded to judicial custody, 5. A charge was framed against the respondent that he as being the Officer Incharge of Gopalpur police station on 11-6-1980 and in such capacity, he corruptly and maliciously kept accused Mangan Mian in confinement in exercise of that authority knowing that in doing so he was acting contrary to law and so he was put on trial for an offence under Sec.220 of the Penal Code. 6. 6. It appears that in course of arrest by the Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station, the accused Mangan Mian sustained injuries in his eyes and on his person. It further appears that a case bearing Case No. 22 (11)/80 was also registered at Naugachia police station under Sec.326 of the Penal Code on 28-11-1983 on the basis of a complaint dated 30-7-1980 filed by the said Mangan Mian which is Ext. 15 in this case. Subsequently investigation of the said case was transferred to Delhi Special Police Establishment and the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the C. B. I.) under the orders of the Government of India with the consent of the State Government. Another case was also registered bearing R. C. (Regular Case No. 19/1981 by the C. B. I. against the respondent. 7. The C. B. I. after investigation submitted the charge-sheet under Sec.342 of the Penal Code against the respondent ,on the basis of which the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance, 8. After hearing the parties on the charge, the trial court framed the charge against the accused under Sec.220 of the Penal Code as indicated above. 9. From the impugned judgment, it appears that after framing of the charge, the respondent moved this court for quashing of the same but this court by its order dated 14-10-1982 dismissed the said application and the trial proceeded. 10. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined as many as 15 witnesses, P. W. 1 and 2 who were station diary writers of Gopalpur police station have proved certain entries. P. W. 3 has proved the sanction of the State Government for the prosecution of the respondent, which is Ext. 8, P. W. has proved the injury report given by Dr. B.C. Rai of Naugachia sub-divisional hospital i.e., Ext. 9. P. W 5 is a doctor who has proved the injury report. P. W 6 is the jail doctor of Bhagalpur Central jail and has proved his forwarding note on custody warrant of the said Maogan Mian. P.W. 7 is a constable who bad collected the injury report of Mangan Mian on 11-6-1980 from Naugachia sub-divisional hospital and had handed over the said injury report to the respondent. P. W 6 is the jail doctor of Bhagalpur Central jail and has proved his forwarding note on custody warrant of the said Maogan Mian. P.W. 7 is a constable who bad collected the injury report of Mangan Mian on 11-6-1980 from Naugachia sub-divisional hospital and had handed over the said injury report to the respondent. P. W. 8 and 9 have been declared hostile, P. W. 10 is the Investigating Officer at the initial stage before it was taken up by the C. B. I. and P. W. 11 is the Inspector of Police C. B. I, and the Chief Investigating Officer in this Case P. W. 12 is the Judicial Magistrate before whom Mangan Mian was produced in the court on 13-6-1980. P. W. 13 is the Assistant Jailor who has proved the complaint (Ext. 15). P. W. 14 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. I, who also investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the respondent and P. W. 15 succeeded the respondent. 11. The defence of the respondent is that he was innocent and has not committed any offence. There was no malice on his part to detain Mangan at Gopalpur police station Hajat from 10.00 a. m. of 11-6-1980 to 19-6-1980. According to his case, as soon as the said accused was forwarded to his police station with a written report of the Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station, he registered a case and at once left for investigation. The respondent returned after investigation at 11.00 p. m. on the same day and thereafter on the next day he was forwarded to sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia at Bhagalpur. Therefore, there was no delay in forwarding the accused in the court from the police station. A technical objection was also taken that no proper sanction for prosecution under Sec.220 of the Penal Code has been obtained from the State Government. 12. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence available on the record came to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the respondent and, therefore, he was acquitted and discharged from his bail bond. Hence this appeal. 13. Mr. 12. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence available on the record came to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the respondent and, therefore, he was acquitted and discharged from his bail bond. Hence this appeal. 13. Mr. Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of C. B. I. has submitted that two allegations have been levelled against the respondent (i) that the respondent did not send the accused immediately for medical aid, and (ii) he did not produce the accused to the nearest Magistrate immediately. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the respondent. The prosecution has failed to prove that detention of the accused Mangal Mian was contrary to law. It was further contended that there is absolutely no evidence against the respondent for detaining the said accused corruptly or maliciously. Therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent. 15. In order to appreciate the points raised by the rival parties, it is necessary to examine the evidence as well as the law in relation to the detention of the accused by an officer incharge of a police station, 16. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the accused Mangan Mian, was an accused in a number of cases and he was arrested by the Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station on 10-6-1980 at 1.00 p.m. The Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station got some information that the said accused, who was absconding was staying in village Panchagachia formed a raiding party and went to the said village in order to arrest the said accused. The Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station found the accused staying alongwith some other persons in an orchard armed with gun. At the sight of of the police party, he fled away but he was chased and in course of chase the accused fired at the police party. The police party also fired three rounds self-defence and in course of arrest, the accused Man-gan Mian sustained some injuries on Ms person and in his eyes. At the sight of of the police party, he fled away but he was chased and in course of chase the accused fired at the police party. The police party also fired three rounds self-defence and in course of arrest, the accused Man-gan Mian sustained some injuries on Ms person and in his eyes. It also appears that when he was brought to the Naugachia police station, he was immediately sent to Naugachia sadar hospital for medical treatment and he was given medical aid by one doctor which is clear from the injury report (Ext. 9) given by Dr. B.C. Rai. 17. From the station diary entry No. 5,44, dated 11-6-1980 (Ext. 1/1), it appears that Mangan Mian was brought to the police station at 10.00 a.m. having injuries on his body and the eyes which are said to have been caused in course of his arrest and after observing the usual formalities, he was put behind the Hajot. The learned C.B.I counsel drew the attention of the court to Ext. 1515 which is a complaint by Mangan Mian from Bhagalpur jail where it was mentioned that when he was arrested by the Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station on 10-6-1980 and was brought at the police station, the Officer Incharge Sharma Jee gave some acid in his eyes and blinded him by means of "lekua". There is no specific allegation in the complaint petition in respect of the respondent. It was stated on behalf of the respondent that a separate case bearing Case No. R. C. 19 of 1981 was also instituted against Shahi Bhusan Sharma which ended in his acquittal. 18. The respondent has been charged under Sec.220 of the Penal Code Section 220 of Penal Code reads as follows : Whoever being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority, knowingly that in so doing he is acting contrary to law shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine or, with Doth. 19. This section is intended to prevent an illegal commitment for trial or an illegal confinement. 19. This section is intended to prevent an illegal commitment for trial or an illegal confinement. It applies to those officers who hold certain offices and who have the right under certain circumstances to confine accused persons of certain offences. The provision of this section will apply only when there has been excess by a police officer of his legal power. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove case that certain officers have acted corruptly, maliciously and with the knowledge that they were acting contrary to law, then only there would be a justification for a conviction under this offence. Where the arrest or confinement is illegal and there is no quality knowledge than in such cases, in nay view the conviction cannot be made. Therefore, it is necessary that the ouus is on the prosecution to prove that the respondent has kept the accused in confinement in excess of his power and he was aeting contrary to law and at the time of acting contrary to law, he was acting corruptly or maliciously. 20. In the instant case, as I have already indicated above that the accused Mangan Mian was arrested by the Naugachia police and after giving him proper medical aid by the officer incharge of Naugachia police station, the accused was forwarded to the respondent who was Officer Incharge of Gopalpur police station who received him on 11-6-1980 at 10 00 a.m. Ext. 9 is the injury report which shows that accused Mangan Mian was medically examined at Naugachia Sadar hospital which is admittedly a better hospital than Gopalpur. Ext. 9 shows that all the injuries were simple in nature except injury No. 1 which was grievous and accused by bard blunt substance. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I. that the Officer Incharge (respondent) after receiving the accused immediately did not refer the accused to Gopalpur hospital for medical treatment which he ought to have done as a Police Officer. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I. that the Officer Incharge (respondent) after receiving the accused immediately did not refer the accused to Gopalpur hospital for medical treatment which he ought to have done as a Police Officer. I may, point out, here that when the accused was received by the respondent, he after making entry left for investigation which he is bound to do under provisions as laid down under Sec.167 of the Code and during the course of investigation he learnt that the accused has already been given medical aid by the Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station before forwarding him to his police station. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that there was any malice or any dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent. 21. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show the accused was corruptly or maliciously kept by him in the Hajat for any ulterior motive without giving him proper medical aid. The words corruptly or maliciously are wide enough to cover confinement for the purpose of extension. Where a police officer wrongfully confines certain persons for any ulterior motive, in that case, certainly there may be a case under Sec.220 of the Penal Code but in the present case I do not find that such evidence has been adduced by the prosecution on that point. In that view of the matter, 1 do not find that the allegation levelled by the prosecution that the respondent did not send send the man for medical aid maliciously has no any substance in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. Now coming to another allegation that the respondent did not produce the accused to the nearest Magistrate immediately, in this connection, I may point out that the accused was received at 10 00 a.m. on 11-6-1980 and he was forwarded to the court on 12-6-1980 at 08.05 a.m. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that a Police Officer can detain a person in custody without warrant for a period not exceeding 24 hours. Sec. 57 of the Code has laid down that no Police Officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable and such period shall not in the absence of a order of Magistrate under Sec.167, exceed twenty four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrates Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the law has given power to the Officer Incharge of a police station to detain a person for 24 hours for the purpose of investigation as laid down under Sec.167 of the Code. Sec.167 of the Code has laid down that whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears to the Investigating Officer that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of 24 hours as fixed by Sec.27 of the Code and there are grounds for believing that it would not be completed within the specified period, he shall forthwith transmit the accused to the nearest Judicial Magistrate with a copy of the entries as prescribed in the section itself. The object of Sec.167 of the Code is to complete the investigation as early as possible and that is why this provision was enacted, but in case it is not possible for the Police Officer to complete the investigation within 24 hours, he shall produce him before the Magistrate to obtain an order of remand not exceeding 15 days to enable the Police Officer to complete the investigation. In the Instant case, 1 find that the accused was never kept in confinement beyond 24 hours and from the materials available on the record, it appears that he was forwarded to the court within 24 hours. This fact has not been controverted by Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I, but according to him the accused must have been forwarded within 24 hours from the date of arrest by the Officer Incharge of Naugachia police station. Here, I may point out that the accused was arrested in Gopalpur P. S. Case No. 7 (1)/80 and Naugachia police forwarded the accused to Officer Incharge of Gopalpur police station. Here, I may point out that the accused was arrested in Gopalpur P. S. Case No. 7 (1)/80 and Naugachia police forwarded the accused to Officer Incharge of Gopalpur police station. The trial court has considered this aspect and he has come to a finding considering all the materials that the total period for detention in Hajat was 23 1/2 hours which is less than 24 hours. The remaining period was spent on journey to court and medical examination. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this contention as well. 23. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondent under Sec.220 of the Penal Code. 24. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.