Warrant under section 73 cannot be issued solely to aid investigation; alternative remedy and section 465 do not cure defect.

The availability of a revision remedy does not, by itself, bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or section 482 of the Code, so the maintainability objection failed. Section 73 of the Code authorises a warrant to apprehend an accused evading arrest, not to issue a warrant solely to aid police investigation; the impugned warrant was therefore unsustainable. Section 465 of the Code could not cure this defect because it applies to appellate, revisional, or confirmation proceedings and not to an ancillary investigative order under section 73. The warrant order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petition was not maintainable in view of the availability of a revision remedy under the Code; (ii) whether a warrant under section 73 of the Code could be issued solely in aid of investigation; (iii) whether section 465 of the Code could save the impugned order from interference.

Issue (i): whether the petition was not maintainable in view of the availability of a revision remedy under the Code

Analysis: The availability of a revision remedy did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code. The petition invoked extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction, and the mere existence of an alternative remedy could not, by itself, defeat maintainability.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether a warrant under section 73 of the Code could be issued solely in aid of investigation

Analysis: The governing principle is that section 73 of the Code authorises issuance of a warrant to apprehend an accused who is evading arrest, but not for the limited purpose of producing the accused before the police in aid of investigation. The impugned order disclosed that the warrant had been issued for assisting investigation, which was contrary to the settled legal position.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be unsustainable.

Issue (iii): whether section 465 of the Code could save the impugned order from interference

Analysis: Section 465 of the Code operates in relation to findings, sentences, or orders in appellate, revisional, or confirmation proceedings where a failure of justice must be shown. It does not govern an ancillary order passed during investigation for issuance of a warrant under section 73 of the Code. The provision therefore could not be invoked to cure the defect in the impugned order.

Conclusion: Section 465 of the Code was held inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The warrant order suffered from a jurisdictional and legal infirmity, and the petitions were allowed with the impugned order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A warrant under section 73 of the Code cannot be issued solely to aid police investigation, and section 465 of the Code does not apply to cure an erroneous ancillary order passed during investigation.

---