H K LODHI Vs. L SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications its revision by one H.K. Lodhi against Shyam Lal. The facts briefly stated are these.

(2.) THE Political Agent in Bhopal issued two warrants on 8th February 1946 for the arrest of the opposite party and addressed one of them to the District Magistrate of Mathura and another to the District Magistrate of Agra. The warrants stated that the opposite party had committed or is supposed to have committed, within the limits of Bhopal, an offence against the laws of the said State and that the offence charged against the opposite party is one which, if committed in British India, would have constituted an offence under Section 420, Penal Code and that the opposite party should, therefore, be arrested under Section 7, Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, 1903, and removed to Bhopal to be delivered to the Chief Justice, High Court, Bhopal. In pursuance of this warrant, the opposite party was arrested at Mathura on 24th September 1946. An application for his being released on bail was made and he was released on bail by an order of the Magistrate the same day. While he was on bail he was again arrested at Agra on 19th October 1946 in compliance with the second warrant of arrest which had been addressed to the District Magistrate of Agra. Later, the District Magistrate of Agra also released him on bail,

(3.) ON 15th January 1947 the opposite party applied under Section 8A, Extradition Act, 1903, to the District Magistrate of Mathura praying that a recommendation be made to the Central Government to cancel the warrant issued by the Political Agent. On 20th January 1947, the District Magistrate of Mathura issued notice to the applicant to appear before him on 20th February 1947 to show cause why the request of the opposite party be not granted. On the 20th February 1947 when the applicant had shown cause, the learned District Magistrate ordered that Mr. T.R. Barkar would investigate in detail and report by 16th June 1947. Against this order dated 20th February 1947, Revision No. 258 of 1947 has been filed in this Court by the applicant and his contention is that the learned Magistrate had a jurisdiction to order investigation into the case.