Extradition warrant execution is executive, not revisable; warrant invalid without statutory territorial basis for arrest.

Execution of an extradition warrant by a District Magistrate was treated as an executive function, so it was not amenable to revisional interference under the Criminal Procedure Code. The warrant was also invalid because the statutory preconditions for extradition jurisdiction were not shown: the offence had to be an extradition offence, the accused could not be a European British subject, and the offence had to be committed or supposed to have been committed within the State territories. On the material before the Court, that territorial basis was lacking, so the arrest could not be sustained and relief against illegal detention remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with the District Magistrate's execution of an extradition warrant; (ii) Whether the warrant was legally issued and the resulting arrest could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with the District Magistrate's execution of an extradition warrant

Analysis: The revisional powers under the Criminal Procedure Code extend only to proceedings before an inferior criminal court. The execution of an extradition warrant by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1903 was treated as a duty of an executive character, not as a judicial proceeding. The Magistrate had no authority to examine the propriety or legality of the warrant and the forwarding of the warrant for execution was therefore not a revisable judicial order.

Conclusion: The High Court had no revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the District Magistrate's execution of the warrant.

Issue (ii): Whether the warrant was legally issued and the resulting arrest could be sustained

Analysis: A legal warrant under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1903 required satisfaction of three conditions: the offence had to be an extradition offence, the accused had not to be a European British subject, and the offence had to have been committed or be supposed to have been committed within the State territories. On the materials before the Court, there was no prima facie basis to show that the alleged offence was committed within the State, while the surrounding facts suggested that any misappropriation or falsification, if at all, occurred in British territory. In those circumstances, the warrant lacked legal authority. Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained available to inquire into illegal detention.

Conclusion: The warrant was illegal and the arrest could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings founded on the illegal warrant were quashed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the applicant was released from the obligation to surrender.

Ratio Decidendi: Execution of an extradition warrant by the District Magistrate is an executive function outside revisional control, but the warrant is invalid unless the statutory preconditions for extradition jurisdiction are satisfied, and illegal detention under such a warrant can be remedied under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---