( 1 ) THIS is a revision by Sardar Narmada Prasad Singh in connection with a searth which took place at his house on 27th october 1949.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the District Magistrate of Rewa, Vindhya Pradesh, issued a search warrant under s. 96, Criminal P. C. This warrant was endorsed by the Regional Commissioner of Vindhya pradesh. It was brought to the District Magistrate of Allahabad who, in his turn endorsed it forwardint the same to the Senior Superintendent of police, Allahabad. The warrant was for the search of the premises of the aplicant in connection with an alleged offence under s. 409, Penal code, committed by him in Vindhya Pradesh. Thereupon, the house of the applicant was searched in the presence of a magistrate of Allahabad, a deputy Superintendent of Police of these provinces and the Superintendent of Police of Vindhya Pradesh and certain documents belonging to the applicant were seized and handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa. These documents have been taken to Rewa.

( 3 ) THE contention, on behalf of the applicant, is that the search warrant issued by the District magistrate of Rewa could not be served in Allahabad and the District Magistrate of Allahabad had no jurisdiction to endorse it, so that the search of his premises might be effected by the superintendent of Police, Rewa, with the help of a magistrate and a Deputy Superintendent of police of Allahabad. It was there prayed that it be declared that the action of the District magistrate of Allahabad was without jurisdiction and that he should be ordered to return the documents, seized from the possession of applicant, to him.

( 4 ) THE only provision under which the applicants house could be searched and documents seized there from on a warrant issued by a court in Rewa is under Section 2, Extradition Act, No. 15 of 1903. Sub-section 2 (b) of that section provides that:

"the Governor General-in-council may make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act: 2 (b) the seizure and disposition of any property which is the subeject of, or required for proof of, any alleged offence to which this Act applies. A rule has been framed under this sub-section which is as follow:

"in any proceedings against any person under the provisions of the Indian Extradition Act, 1903, or of any treaty for the extradition of offenders, the Magistrate, acting in such proceedings and any police officer authorised to arrest such person under the provisions of the said Act or of such treaty, may exercise in any place in British India in respect of any property in the possession of such person or of any other person which appears to such Magistrate of police officer to have been the subject of or to be required for proof of the offence in respect of which the proceedings are being taken, the powers respectively of a Court and of an officer in charge of a police staton under the code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as if such property were property the production of which is necesssary for the purposes of any investigation or trial under the said code by or before such Court or officer; and the provisions of the said Code, so far as they can be made applicable, shall apply to any summons or warrant issued in pursuance of this rule and to any search made under the authority of any warrant so issued and to the disposal of any property seized in any such search. "

( 5 ) IT is at onece obvious from a perusal of this rule that before a Magistrate in British India can issue a search warrant or endorse a search warrant issued by a Magistrate in a State like the vindhya Pradesh, there must be before him some proceeding against some person for extradition under the indian Extradition Act. A Magistrate in British India gets jurisdiction only when extraditon proceedings are pending before him against any person. This is clear from the words "the Magistrate, acting in such proceedings" in the rule quoted above. If such proceedings are pending, a Magistrate in British India w