Privy Council At Madras
Sir George Lowndes, Lord Porter, Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
C.P. Matthen and others -Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, Trivandrum and another -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 102 of 1938
Decided On : 03-04-1939
Habeas Corpus - Jurisdiction of High Court of Madras - Indian Extradition Act (15 of 1903) - S. 7, S. 491, Criminal P. C. (5 of 1898) - S. 410, 419, 421, 480, 99, 101 of the Travancore Penal Code - S. 491, Criminal P. C. - Rr. 2 and 2-A of the Appellate Side Rules - Common law writ of habeas corpus - Full Bench held that the common law writ of habeas corpus does not run in British India in a case like this, and that the powers conferred by S. 491, Criminal P. C., substituted the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus - Rules 2 and 2-A of the Appellate Side of the High Court are intra vires the Court's powers - Pandurang Row J.'s order issuing a rule nisi was passed without jurisdiction and is consequently null and void - The application filed under S. 491, Criminal P. C., must be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the Court which means that it must be dealt with by the Criminal Bench
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the validity of warrants issued under S. 7, Indian Extradition Act, to the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras, under which they were arrested, and they asked to be discharged. The course of procedure raised questions about the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to issue a writ of habeas corpus and the competency of a single Judge of the High Court to issue such a writ or the analogous writ under S. 491, Criminal P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench held that the common law writ of habeas corpus does not run in British India in a case like this, and that the powers conferred by S. 491, Criminal P. C., substituted the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The Full Bench also held that Rules 2 and 2-A of the Appellate Side of the High Court are intra vires the Court's powers, and Pandurang Row J.'s order issuing a rule nisi was passed without jurisdiction and is consequently null and void. The application filed under S. 491, Criminal P. C., must be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the Court which means that it must be dealt with by the Criminal Bench.
Issues: The jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to issue a writ of habeas corpus, the competency of a single Judge of the High Court to issue such a writ or the analogous writ under S. 491, Criminal P. C., and the validity of warrants issued under S. 7, Indian Extradition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The common law writ of habeas corpus does not run in British India in a case like this, and the powers conferred by S. 491, Criminal P. C., substituted the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Rules 2 and 2-A of the Appellate Side of the High Court are intra vires the Court's powers, and Pandurang Row J.'s order issuing a rule nisi was passed without jurisdiction and is consequently null and void. The application filed under S. 491, Criminal P. C., must be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the Court which means that it must be dealt with by the Criminal Bench.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Thankerton:-
This is an appeal from (1) a judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madras, dated 4th November 1938, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1003 of 1938, which on a reference by a Division Bench of the same Court, held that the orders of Pandrang Row J., a single Judge of the Court, on an application for writ of habeas corpus and relative applications, and dated 21st, 24th and 26th October 1938, made in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 986, 990 and 985 of 1938 respectively, were null and void, (2) a judgment and order of the said Division Bench, dated 7th November 1938, made in petition No, 1003 in implement of the above judgment, and (3) a judgment and order of the said Division Bench, dated 7th November 1938, made in petition No. 985, dismissing the application for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellants challenge the validity of certain warrants issued by the Resident for the Madras States under S. 7, Indian Extradition Act (15 of 1903), to the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras, under which they were arrested, and they ask to be discharged. The course of procedure which has been followed has raised important questions as to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to issue a writ of habeas corpus in the present case, and as to the competency of a single Judge of the High Court to issue such a writ or the analogous writ under S. 491, Criminal P. C. (5 of 1898). The warrant against appellant 1 was in the following terms:
To the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.
Whereas Mr. C. P. Matthen, Director of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. (which is now under liquidation), who is now reported to be residing at Marble Hall, Sterling Road, Nungumbakam, Madras, stands charged with offences punishable under Ss. 410, 419, 421, 480 and also Ss. 99 and 101 of the Travancore Penal Code corresponding to Ss. 409, 418, 420, 477-A, 109 and 114, I.P.C., committed in the Travancore State, you are hereby directed to apprehend the said Mr. C. P. Matthen and surrender him to the frontier police station of the Travancore State for production before the District Magistrate, Trevandram. Herein fail not.
(Sgd.) C. P. Skrine,
Resident for the Madras States.
The warrants against the other three appellants were in the same terms. Appellant 4 denies that he is a director of the Bank, but that is not material at this stage. It will be noted that the warrants were not dated. The appellants were all arrested in Madras on the instructions of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who is respondent 2 in this appeal, on 20tb October 1938. The Travancore National and Quilon Bank was formed by the amalgamation of two Banks and was incorporated in Travancore in September 1937, though the head office was in Madras and the larger part of its business would appear to be carried on in the Madras Presidency. The appellants, who are Travancore subjects, had taken up residence in Madras in 1937, in order to conduct the business there. The District Magistrate, Trivandrum, referred to in the warrants, is respondent 1 in this appeal. Learning that the appellants were to be taken to Travancore by a train leaving at 11 A. M. on 21st October 1938, and having in view that the High Court did not sit until 10.45 A. M., the sons of appellants 1 and 2 presented a petition (No. 985 of 1938) under S. 491, Criminal PC, for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of all the appellants early on the morning of that day to Pandrang Row J., a Judge of the High Court, at his residence. This petition was supported by an affidavit by the son of appellant 1, and along with it a further petition (No. 986 of 1938) was presented to the Judge asking for a stay of execution of the warrants. On the latter petition (No. 986 of 1938), Pandrang Row J. made the following order, viz.:
As the matter is extremely urgent the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, should detain these prisoners in his custody and not send them away from Madras pending further orders of the High
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.