Order.- The three revision petitioners were tried by the First Class Magistrate, Ponkunnam, for offences under sections 224, 225 and 332 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner was convicted under section 224 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioners 2 and 3 were convicted under sections 225 read with section 114 and section 332 and sentenced to three month’s simple imprisonment under each count. They appealed to the Sessions Judge, Kottayam, who while maintaining the sentence, altered the conviction of the first petitioner into one under section 225-B, Indian Penal Code and to one under section 225-B read with section 114 and section 353 in the case of petitioners 2 and 3. Pissatisfied with the result of the appeal, the petitioners have now approached this Court in revision. The facts of the case are simple. It is alleged that the first accused is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 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 (P.W. 1) and two process-servers (P.Ws. 2 and 3) to arrest one “Ouseph Ulahannan of Puthuparambil, Kanjirapally Pakuthy, Kanjirapally Kara”. On 9th January, 1959 at 11 a.m. the first accused was arrested by P.W. 1 assisted by P.Ws. 2 and 3 from near the culvert at Kanjirapally 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 P.W. 2 and as a result accused 1 escaped from the lawful custody of the amin and the process-servers. 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. No. 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, Kanjirapalli Kara, Kanjirappalli 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. 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. Exhibit D-2 is a sale deed taken by the first accused where he is described in similar terms and Exhibit D-3 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. No. 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. Exhibit P-10 an earlier warrant issued in the same case where the same description is given as in Exhibits P-1 to P-3 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 29th June, 1960, after the accused was examined under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, on 23rd June, 1960 and no opportunity was given to the accused to explain that circumstance against him. The late production of Exhibit P-10 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 late production of Exhibit P-10 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. If the description in the warrant of the person to be arrested is wrong it makes the warrant invalid and the arrest illegal and the attempt of the accused to resist an illegal arrest does not make him liable to punishment under section 225-B. In Debi Singh v. Queen Empress1, 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 sections 225-B 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 sections 225-B 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. 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 P.Ws. 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 P.Ws. 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 P.Ws. 1 to 3 were officers of Court or that accused 1 had been arrested by them under a process of the Court. In the absence of evidence that the person to be arrested is correctly described in the warrant and that accused 2 and 3 knew P.Ws. 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. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.