Order Accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the petitioners. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate (II), Madurai, for an offence under section 224, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused 3, 5 and 6 were convicted under sections 147 and 225, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal the Sessions Judge of Madurai set aside the conviction and sentence of accused 3, 5 and 6 under section 147, Indian Penal Code and confirmed the convictions and sentences of accused 1 and 2 under section 224, Indian Penal Code and of accused 3, 5 and 6 under section 225, Indian Penal Code. In connection with a prohibition raid, accused 1 and 2 were arrested, handcuffed and taken by the Police. The other Koravars also were handcuffed and taken by the Police. While those persons were being taken to the Police Station, on the way accused 3 to 6 and some others came in a body and demanded the release of accused 1 and 2 and the other two Koravars. The Police refused to release them. Thereupon the Police party was stoned by accused 3 to 6 and others and accused 1 and 2 were forcibly taken away. But their attempt to take away the other two Koravars failed. There is no doubt that accused 3 to 6 along with others stoned the Police Officers, caused injuries to them and rescued accused 1 and 2 and also threatened to do harm to the Police Officers. So far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned, there is no evidence that they themselves voluntarily escaped from the custody of the Police. They were forcibly taken away by accused 3 to 6 and others. In these circumstances, as pointed out by the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court in a Bench decision consisting of himself and Jagannadhadas, J., King Emperor v. Lachhu Kamara1, it would not amount to escape from lawful custody. They observed: "If he was forcibly snatched away from the custody, it cannot be said he intentionally escaped from the custody. The key word in section 224 is "intentionally". This decision will apply so far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned. They observed: "If he was forcibly snatched away from the custody, it cannot be said he intentionally escaped from the custody. The key word in section 224 is "intentionally". This decision will apply so far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned. So the conviction and sentence under section 224, Indian Penal Code, in respect of accused 1 and 2 are set aside and they are acquitted. So far as accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, they behaved not only in an unruly manner but also in a manner to deter public servants from discharging their duties. An offence of this kind must be severely dealt with. I therefore confirm their convictions and sentences under section 225, Indian Penal Code. The petition so far as accused, 3, 5 and 6 are concerned is dismissed, while in respect of accused 1 and 2 is allowed. R.M. ----- Petition allowed in respect of accused 1 and 2.