SANKARANARAYANA RENGAN REDDIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is against the order of the Additional District Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, in M. C. No. 1 of 1961 extraditing the petitioner for offence of criminal misappropriation of property and criminal breach of trust Under Section 3 (4) of the Extradition Act.

(2.) THE learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection that the order of the Additional District Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, could not be revised by this Court Under Section 439 Cri. P. c. His contention is that after a magistrate finds that a prima facie case has been made out, he should only make a report to the Government Under Section 3 (6) of the Act and it is for the Central Government to decide whether the fugitive offender should be surrendered or not. He relied on the decision in Rudolf Stallmann v. Emperor ILR 38 Cal 547 where it was held that the High court has no jurisdiction Under Section 15 of the Charter Act to revise the proceedings of a magistrate acting Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Extradition Act. But this decision was distinguished in the matter of Rudolf Stallmann ILR 39 Cal 164, after the extradition proceedings against Rudolf Stallmann were concluded. It was pointed out in that decision that the view may well be maintained that though it is not open to the High Court to interfere with proceedings of the magistrate during the pendency of the extradition enquiry, occasion may arise for the exercise of the powers trader Section 491 Crl. P. C. after the enquiry has closed. Reliance was placed on the decision In Rajangam v. State of Madras , in support of the contention that extradition proceedings, like proceedings under" Section 176 Crl. P. C. should not be subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The definition of judicial proceeding in clause 4 (m) of the Cri. P. Code as including any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath, was attempted to be used during arguments in that decision as showing that proceedings Under Section 176 Crl. P. C. are judicial proceedings and are subject to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. But it was pointed out in that decision that the definition only means that wherever the expression "judicial proceeding" is used, it is a proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath and that the converse is not always the truth. It was also pointed out in that decision that Under Section 435 Crl. P. C. the High Court can call for and examine the records of any proceeding, only of an inferior criminal court and that it was not contended in that case that an enquiry by a magistrate Under Section 176 Crl. P. C. is by a court. In fact in Vijayaraghavalu v. Theagaraya Chetti ILR 38 Mad 581: A. I. R. 1915 Mad 360 (2) relied on by the respotv dent it was held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to revise an order passed by a presidency magistrate in an inquiry held by virtue of the rules framed by Government under the Madras City Municipal Act, whereby a magistrate may decide as to the competency or otherwise of a candidate for municipal election. The reason for the decision is that toe magistrate is not a court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court within the meaning of that word in Section 15 of the Charter Act and that he is in the position of a referee between the president of the Municipal Corporation and the candidate.

(3.) UNDER Extradition Act, it is only a magistrate, who would have had jurisdiction to enquire into a crime if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of