Wrongful restraint can include stopping a passenger bus, and charge defects matter only if they cause failure of justice.

Obstructing a motor-bus carrying passengers may amount to wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew because the right to proceed is not limited to movement on foot, and stopping the vehicle can prevent them from continuing their journey. The commentary also notes that a defect or irregularity in the charge does not by itself vitiate the result unless it has caused a failure of justice. On the facts described, the charge was understood at trial, no prejudice was shown, and the legal reasoning treats the restraint as voluntary and wrongful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether obstructing a motor-bus carrying passengers amounts to wrongful restraint of the persons in the bus within the meaning of the Penal Code; (ii) whether the acquittal could be sustained on the ground of defect in the charge or absence of failure of justice.

Issue (i): Whether obstructing a motor-bus carrying passengers amounts to wrongful restraint of the persons in the bus within the meaning of the Penal Code.

Analysis: The definition of wrongful restraint turns on voluntary obstruction of a person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which the person has a right to proceed. When passengers are travelling in a motor vehicle, obstruction of the vehicle may amount to obstruction of the persons travelling in it. The right to proceed is not confined to movement on foot. On the facts found, stopping the bus and preventing it from continuing its journey amounted to restraint of the passengers and crew.

Conclusion: The obstruction of the bus constituted wrongful restraint within the meaning of the Penal Code, and the finding of guilt under Section 341 was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal could be sustained on the ground of defect in the charge or absence of failure of justice.

Analysis: An error or irregularity in the charge does not vitiate the finding unless it has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. The charge was understood at the trial, no prejudice was shown, and the appellate court erred in treating the wording of the charge and the nature of the restraint as fatal. The obstruction was voluntary and wrongful, and no legal basis existed to uphold the acquittal on the grounds stated.

Conclusion: The defect in the charge did not justify acquittal, but the revisional court declined interference because the acquittal had not occasioned such failure of justice as to require reversal.

Final Conclusion: The rule was discharged, leaving the appellate acquittal undisturbed notwithstanding the error of law identified in the reasoning below.

Ratio Decidendi: Obstruction of a vehicle carrying persons can amount to wrongful restraint of those persons when it prevents them from proceeding in the direction in which they have a right to proceed, and an irregularity in the charge will not vitiate the result absent failure of justice.

---