Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.

1. This petition is under Sections 108 and 107 of the Government of India Act, 5 and 6 George V.C. 61 and Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking us to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate requiring deposit of security from the petitioner. I have already dealt with the contention of Mrs. Annie Besant in the petition under Section 17 of the Press Act and held that the order was made in excess of the power conferred on the Magistrate but that there was no provision in the Press Act itself which would enable us to revise the order.

2. Under Section 105 of the Government of India Act which continues in this High Court all the powers and authority already vested in it we are asked to quash the proceedings of the Magistrate by means of a writ of certiorari. The old Supreme Court of Madras which is now absorbed in the High Court had all the jurisdiction and authority of the Court of the Kings Bench in England which included the power to issue writs of certiorari. (See 39 and 40 George III Chapter 79 and the Letters Patent of 1800). That power has been preserved to the Madras High Court by the High Courts (Charter) Act 1861, the Charter Act of 1865, Letters Patent, Madras 1865 and lastly the Government of India Act 1915. It is not shown that this jurisdiction has been taken away by any act of the legislature which could only be done by express words or by necessary implication.

3. I find nothing in Section 22 of the Press Act which can be said o have deprived the High Court of this power. Section 22 says "every declaration of forfeiture purporting to be made under this Act shall as against all persons be conclusive evidence that the forfeiture therein referred to has taken place, and no proceeding purporting to be taken under this Act shall be called in question by any Court except the High Court on such application as aforesaid...." The first part I have no doubt does not refer to the validity of an order of forfeiture but to the fact that it has been made. And I do not see how it is possible to read the words "and no proceeding purporting to be taken under this Act" as including any order of the Magistrate under Section 3(1), otherwise the passage would run thus "and no proceeding purporting to be taken under this Act including an order of the Magistrate under Section 3(1) shall be called in question by any Court except the High Court on such application as aforesaid." This would make no meaning. The application referred to there is an application under Section 17, that is to set aside an order of forfeiture and that clearly shows that the proceeding in contemplation of the legislature is a proceeding under Section 4 and under similar sections of the Act and not a proceeding under Section 3 which has nothing to do with forfeitures at all. This may be an omission on the part of the Legislature but we have to give effect to the Act as we find it.

4. There can be no doubt whatever that this High Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in order to remove the proceedings of courts or of persons entrusted with Judicial functions out of ordinary course of legal procedure for the purpose of quashing them. It was stated at the bar that no instance of the issue of such writs by this Court is to be found on record. But that would not extinguish the jurisdiction. It is true as pointed out by the Advocate-General that many of the powers which the Kings Bench exercises in England by means of writ of certiorari have been expressly conferred upon the High Courts in India by different legislative enactments such as Section 15 of the Letters Patent, Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, etc.

5. But these powers of revision and control are available only over the proceedings of ordinary Courts; while a writ of certiorari is issued not only to Courts but to tribunals specially const