Order.- The finding of the Sessions Judge and of the Magistrate is that the petitioner rescued Basamma from the custody in which she was lawfully detained. That finding was based on the prosecution evidence which those Courts believed and that being so, that finding of fact is not liable to be disturbed in Revision. But Mr. Kagalkar has urged that there is no finding either by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge that the rescue by the petitioner was an intentional rescue and that unless the rescue was intentional what was done by the petitioner did not amount to an offence punishable under section 225 of the Indian Penal Code. There are, in my opinion, two answers to this contention. If the provisions of section 225 of the Indian Penal Code, are looked into, it becomes clear that a rescue from lawful custody which is made punishable under that section need not be an intentional rescue. It is only the resistance or ill gal obstruction to apprehension that has to be proved to be intentional before it can amount to an offence Section 225 consists of two parts. Under the first part, whoever intentionally offers any resistence or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence commits an offence punishable under that section. Under the second part, whoever rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence is also guilty of an offence. Now for the offence to fall within the second part of section 225 of the Penal Code, the rescue or attempt to rescue need not be intentional. Even otherwise, it seems to me that we must understand the finding of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge as amounting to a finding that the rescue by the petitioner of Basamma was an intentional rescue. If a person rescues another person who is in lawful custody so that he may be prosecuted for an offence committed by him it is obvious that the rescue cannot be anything but intentional. The argument presented by Mr. Kagalkar that there is some infirmity in the finding of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge must therefore be negatived. It was next urged by Mr. Kagalkar that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to examine his witnesses. The argument presented by Mr. Kagalkar that there is some infirmity in the finding of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge must therefore be negatived. It was next urged by Mr. Kagalkar that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to examine his witnesses. I do not find it possible to accede to this contention. The petitioner made no application for examination of any defence witnesses within the time allowed to him by the Magistrate and the Magistrate thought that the application presented by the Petitioner was presented at such a late stage as not to merit any order being made in his favour. In these circumstances this Revision Petition cannot succeed and is therefore dismissed. S.V.S. ------- Petition dismissed.