A Magistrate has the authority to arrest a person whom he believes to be guilty of a cognizable offence, even if he has not taken cognizance of the case himself.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the appellant Lala Ram Narain against Sri a. Sen and Sri Baltair Prasad for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for false imprisonment.

( 2 ) IN August, 1944 Sri A. Sen was working as the District Supply Officer in Agra and Sri Balbir prasad was working as an Inspector under him. The District Magistrate of Agra had promulgated a Brick and Cement Control Order under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules on the 31st march, 1944. This Brick and Cement Control Order was in supersession of a previous one promulgated in December, 1943. By the order of the 31st March, 1944, which is the control order with which we are concerned in these appeals, the District Magistrate prohibited any person or local body from using or causing to be used pucca bricks and cement in the construction of any building or part thereof in the district of Agra, without first obtaining a permit for the same from the District Magistrate or the District Supply Officer. The expression "construction of building" was declared to include alterations in and replacement of the existing structure of a building, but it did not include minor repairs, meaning repairs in which more than 1,000 bricks or more than one bag of cement were not needed. Any person contravening the provisions of the Order was liable to imprisonment for a term which might have extended to three years or to fine or both.

( 3 ) ON the 25th August, 1944 Mohammad Zamir Bux, who was an inquiry Inspector in the rationing and Supply Department, came to know that the plaintiff-appellant was making some constructions in his house. He informed Lal Bahadur, the senior Town Inspector, of the constructions and they both went to the shop of Lala Ram Narain. They stated that the appellant admitted that he was making the constructions but also said that he would apply for obtaining the permit from the District Magistrate soon. Lal Bahadur accordingly made a report the same day to the Area Rationing Officer, Sri Amir Singh, informing him that the appellant had been making new constructions on the third storey and that he had told Lal Bahadur and Zamir Bux that he had applied for permission and was making the constructions in anticipation of the sanction. He recommended prosecution of the appellant. Sri Amir Singh, in his turn, forwarded the report on the 28th August, 1944 to the District Supply Officer, Sri A. Sen, for taking necessary action, on receipt of the report Sri A. Sen asked Sri Balbir Prasad to make an enquiry and report. Balbir prasad says that he went to the house of the appellant and wanted the appellant to show him the constructions, but the appellant refused to do so, in spite of the fact that he showed his identity card to the appellant. The appellant denies that Balbir Prasad showed his identity card. Balbir prasad then sent for the Sub-Inspector of Police and when the Sub-Inspector arrived, the appellant agreed to show the new constructions to Balbir Prasad. After seeing the constructions, Balbir Prasad made a report on the 29th August, 1944 in which he stated that six persons were working at the new constructions, when he saw the place. He also mentioned in the report the dimensions of the three walls which had been constructed and further said that more than 1,000 pucca bricks had been used in these constructions and the appellant had thus contravened the Brick and Cement Control Order of 1944. This report was placed before Sri A. Sen on the 31st August, 1944 when he directed a notice. to issue to Lala Ram Narain. The notice was accordingly sent stating that it was reported to Sri A. Sen that the appellant was making some constructions without obtaining any permission and that the appellant should see Sri Sen on Saturday, the 2nd September, 1944, in connection with the above matter. This notice was served on the appellant on the 2nd September, 1944 and it is said that it was served at about 1 P. M.

( 4 ) THE case of