JUDGMENT V.M.DESHPANDE, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Heard Shri A. S. Chakotkar, learned Advocate (appointed) for the applicant and Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned APP for nonapplicants/State. The non-applicants/State has also filed reply. 4. By filing the present application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is praying for quashment of the First Information Report No. 140/2017 registered with Police Station MIDC for the offence under Sec. 224 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) together with charge-sheet filed against him and the Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No. 21479/2017 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 9, Nagpur on the ground that the applicant himself has surrendered before the Authority. 5. It would be useful to refer certain facts of this case. The applicant was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC vide judgment and order of conviction dtd. 30/3/2015 and he was undergoing imprisonment for life in Nagpur prison. 6. On 21/3/2017, the applicant was released on furlough for a period of 21 days by the Authority. As per the order of furlough, he was required to surrender himself before the Jail Authority on 12/4/2017. However, the applicant did not surrender himself on due date. Since, the applicant did not surrender before the Jail Authority on due date, the non-applicant no. 2 lodged report with Police Station MIDC, Nagpur on 14/4/2017, whereby it was stated that inspite of the fact that the applicant was to surrender on 12/4/2017, he absconded himself and did not return to the jail therefore, an offence was registered against the applicant by the Police Officer, MIDC Police Station for the offence under Sec. 224 of the IPC. The applicant has himself surrender before the Jail Authority on 3/5/2017 i.e. after 21 days of his notified date. 7. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant that since the applicant himself surrendered before the Jail Authority therefore, it will have to be presumed that he has not obstructed or put any resistance and therefore, the FIR and consequent charge-sheet is required to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the applicant could not surrendered himself on due date as he was hospitalized. 8. He submitted that the applicant could not surrendered himself on due date as he was hospitalized. 8. It would be useful to refer to Sec. 224 of the IPC and it is reproduced as under:- "224. Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension.-Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 9. Sec. 224 of the IPC has two distinct parts. The first part relates to resistance to apprehension and the second part relates to escape from custody. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused under first part, the prosecution needs to prove the following ingredients:- (i) that the accused was charged or convicted; (ii) that he offered resistance or obstruction to his apprehension; (iii) that such resistance or obstruction was illegal; and (iv) that the accused offered such resistance or obstruction illegally. 10. When the offence charged is that of escape or attempt to escape from custody, the prosecution is to prove the following:- (i) that the accused was taken into custody for commission of an offence; (ii) that such detention in custody was lawful; (iii) that the accused escaped from such custody or made an attempt to do so; and (iv) that the accused did so intentionally. 11. The plain reading of Sec. 224 of the IPC clearly show that scope of Sec. 224 is much wider than the scope tried to be pressed into service. No doubt true that the applicant has surrendered himself and did not make any resistance or obstruction in any way however, the phraseology used in Sec. is very clear which shows that if a person who is convicted escapes from lawful custody, it can be said that he has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 224 of the IPC. Whether it was intentional or not needs to be considered in the trial. 12. Whether it was intentional or not needs to be considered in the trial. 12. Since, the applicant required to be surrendered on 12/4/2017 and he has not surrendered and thereafter he surrendered on 3/5/2017 therefore, the period from 13/4/2017 to 3/5/2017 could be the period for which it is conveniently said that the applicant escape himself from the course of law. Therefore, prima facie, provision of Sec. 224 of the IPC can be applied in this case. 13. Insofar as explanation offered by the learned Advocate for the applicant that during the said period from 12/4/2017 to 3/5/2017 he could not surrendered on due date because of ill health and was admitted in hospital could be ascertained during the Trial. 14. In view of the above, we see no merits in this application. The application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 15. Shri A. S. Chakotkar, learned Advocate is appointed by Legal Aid Committee to represent the applicant. We are of the view that for the efforts put up by Shri Chakotkar, he is entitled for his fees and professional charges for the expense he incurred from Legal Aid, which quantified to 3500/- (Rs. Three Thousand Five Hundred). Rs. 3500/- (Rs. Three Thousand Five Hundred).