S VELAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Trivandrum arises out of an application made by the petitioner S. Velappan to quash the order of the Sub Magistrate, Trivandrum. The petitioner was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor in execution of a warrant issued by the Bench of Magistrates, Moradabad against the proprietor, Kathirvel & Co., Puthenchanthai, Trivandrum. He was arrested and produced before the Sub Magistrate, Trivandrum - 2 and as the offence charged was one under S.417 and 420 I.P.C., both bailable offences, the learned Magistrate released him on basis of taking a bond for his appearance before the Bench Magistrate's Court, Moradabad on 21-8-63, to which date the case stood posted for hearing. The petitioner's case is that the warrant directed the arrest of the proprietor, Kathirvel & Co., Trivandrum, that it does not mention either the name or the description of the person to be arrested, that he is not the proprietor of the company shown in the warrant and his arrest is illegal. The learned Sub Magistrate dismissed the petition. The question for decision is whether the warrant issued in this case is legal.

(2.) S.83 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that when a warrant is to be executed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court issuing the same, such court may, forward the same by post or otherwise to any Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police for execution and the Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner to whom such warrant is so forwarded shall endorse his name on the warrant and cause it to foe executed. S.86(1) says that such Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall, if the person arrested appears to be the person intended by the court which issued the warrant direct his removal in custody to such court: Provided that, if the offence is bailable, and such person is ready and willing to give bail to the satisfaction of such Magistrate bail shall be taken and the security bond shall be forwarded to the court which issued the warrant.

(3.) The scope of S.86 Cr. P.C. arose in the case in In re Sagarmal Khemraj (AIR 1940 Bom. 397). In that case the warrant was addressed to the "O/C concerned" and refer to the two applicants merely by their names, the first "Sagarmal Khemraj" and the other 'Kaluram Hirachand' and in the margin of the warrant is a note initialled by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta to this effect: "Forwarded to the third Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for favour of execution and return." It was held that the warrants were invalid because they did not sufficiently specify the person to be arrested. Their Lordships stated: