Judgment :- The accused in S.T. No. 2838 of 1985 of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam, who was also the appellant in Crl. appeal No. 19 of 1987 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, and the petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 22 of 1988 of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, is the petitioner. Concurrently he had been found guilty under S.48(c) of the Kerala Police Act, convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. Briefly, the allegation-against him was that the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamangalam, and party found him on the verandah of a closed shop at Choolamvayal on 18-8-1985 at 2 a.m. and that he was unable to explain his presence there. He was arrested on the belief that he was biding his time to commit theft. The entire proceedings are sought to be quashed in this petition filed under S.482 Cr. P.C. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that S.48 of the Act has been misconstrued by the courts below and that the conviction and sentence are illegal. It was also urged that the courts below have mechanically applied the section without understanding its true scope. 4. S.48 of the Kerala Police Act deals with "Penalty for being found armed between sunset and sunrise intending to commit an offence, etc", and states: "Whoever is found between sunset and sunrise (a) armed with any dangerous instrument with intent to commit an offence; (b) having his face covered or otherwise disguised with intent to commit an offence; (c) in any dwelling house or other building or on board any vessel or boat, without being able satisfactorily to account for his presence there; XXX XXX XXX XXX may be arrested by any police officer without a warrant and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for any learn not exceeding three months". The section, it appears, applies to persons who intend to commit an offence and has made preparations therefor under cover of darkness. Merely because a person was found between sun set and sunrise in any dwelling house or other building or on board any vessel or boat, without being able satisfactorily to account for his presence there, an offence under S.48 cannot be said to have been committed. Merely because a person was found between sun set and sunrise in any dwelling house or other building or on board any vessel or boat, without being able satisfactorily to account for his presence there, an offence under S.48 cannot be said to have been committed. Besides physical presence, in the premises mentioned in sub-section (c) of S.48, the prosecution must also show that the person had taken precaution for concealment and also made preparation for committing an offence. The question whether he had or not satisfactorily explained his presence, is not a matter to rest only on the subjective satisfaction of the officer who apprehends him. Subjective satisfaction of the officer may not always be safe to accept. It may some times amount to his whim or fancy or sheer arbitrariness and therefore there should be safeguards to ensure that the officer had not misused his power or authority. It is, therefore, proper and desirable that the questions put to the person and the answers which were obtained should find a place in the records. This would help the court to decide whether his presence was reasonably explained or not. Allowance should certainly be given to individual stances and marginal discrepancies in the answers. The court should be alive to social problems. Interference with individual liberty should not be permitted except for justifying reasons. 5. As far as this case was concerned there was only the unsatisfactory evidence of P.Ws. land 4 about the incident. There is no record to corroborate the version that the petitioner could not satisfactorily account for his presence on the verandah from where he was reportedly apprehended. The court should have been told the questions that P. W. 4 put to the petitioner and the answers that were obtained, as also the circumstances which were relevant in connection with the reported apprehension. In the absence of these materials and merely because petitioner was found on the verandah of a closed shop, it was impossible to say that he committed an offence under clause (c) of S.48 as found by the court below. In my view, prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond doubt. I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him. Crl. M.C. is allowed. \