IN RE: BAI AISHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, ordering the applicant to surrender herself on a warrant dated April 20, 1928, issued by the Resident at Baroda, or in the alternative to give bail as required by the warrant to attend before the Second Class Magistrate at Navsari in the Baroda State. The warrant is issued under the provisions of Article 7 of the Indian Extradition Act (XV of 1903). It recites that the applicant Bai Aisha (Mabel Ferris alias Isa Badruddin) wife of Akuji Isabji of Taluka Navsari, stands charged with having committed in the Baroda State the offences of criminal breach of trust and theft, which in British India would be punishable under Sections 406 and 380 of the pndian Penal Code.

(2.) It appears that on July 17, 1927, the Bombay Police had at she instance of the Baroda Police arrested the applicant for the same alleged offence. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time as the extradition warrant from Baroda had not been issued. By his letter dated September 6, 1927, the Resident at Baroda informed the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay that the Baroda Government had intimated to him that there was not sufficient evidence to enable them to apply for the extradition of the applicant and that she might, therefore, be discharged. On September 16, 1927, the Chief Presidency Magistrate passed orders discharging the applicant. The same charge has since been revived at the instance of Sakharam Gangaram Surve, Naib Sub-Inspector, Baroda State, and the Bombay Police again arrested the applicant on April 14, 1928. The Magistrate, on April 16, 1928, made an order granting bail on certain terms and in default remanded the applicant to jail .custody. The extradition warrant was received in Bombay on April 23 or 24, 1928. The Chief Presidency Magistrate then heard the evidence of two prosecution witnesses and recorded the applicant s statement. He intimated that as the applicant s statement made before him had not been challenged by the prosecutor he would, before proceeding further, report the case to the Local Government. The case was adjourned for that reason. By his letter to Government dated April 28, 1928, the Magistrate recommended that the Local Government should refuse the applicant s extradition. He stated in the letter that the accused (applicant) was a European British subject and it was open to the complainant, if so advised, to proceed against her in British India on obtaining the certificate required by Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The report to Government was made by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 8A of the Indian Extradition Act. The Government would be competent under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act to have the extradition warrant cancelled and the person for whose arrest such warrant was issued discharged. By their letter dated June 25, 1928, the Government, acting on a report made to them by the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, intimated to the Chief Presidency Magistrate that the applicant should be surrendered to the Baroda State for trial. The Legal Remembrancer s report, dated June 19, 1928, states :

(3.) After the receipt of this letter the Chief Presidency Magistrate further heard the matter and made his order now complained of. In the reasons given for the order the Magistrate states: