(1.) This Rule raises an interesting question. It was obtained on. behalf of one Rahmat Ali, who says that he is a British subject residing at Tilinipara in the district of Hooghly. The necessary facts are as follows:
(2.) On April 4th a Jamadar of the French Police came tot he Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serampur with a delegation from the Juge d Instruction at Chandernagore. The delegation directed the Jamadar, or Adjutant de Police, to proceed to Telinipara and, with the assistance of the British Police, to arrest Rah mat Ali on a charge of theft. The Magistrate directed the Sub-Inspector of Bhadreswar to assist in arresting Rah mat Ali, and on April 5 the petitioner was arrested and next day he was produced before the Magistrate who remanded him to custody, and ordered a letter to be written to the Bengal Government asking for an extradition warrant. On April 7th the Magistrate wrote a letter to the Bengal Government reporting that the Police had arrested one Rah mat Ali on the requisition of the French authorities at Chandernagore, and saying that the man would be handed over to the French authorities on receipt of the formal sanction of Government to his extradition. On April 8th the Administrator of Chandernagore wrote to the Govern-merit of Bengal enclosing a warrant of arrest, issued by the Huge d Instruction against Rah mat Ali and two others, and asking for their extradition.
(3.) On April 14th the Bengal Government sent a copy of the Administrator s letter with the warrant to the District Magistrate of Hooghly, directing him to take the necessary steps for arresting Rahmat Ali and making him over to the authorities at French Chandernagore under proper escort. This letter was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serampore on April 17th. By that time the petitioner had again been remanded to custody, and the date fixed for his production was April 2Jth. On April 22nd this Rule was issued by us, and in the meantime the petitioner was released on bail under the orders of the Sessions Judge.