JUDGMENT

Jai Lal, J. - Sikandar, appellant, having been convicted and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment under Section 379/75, I.P.C., appealed to this Court through the jail. His appeal was heard by Skemp, J., who by his order of 20th May 1927, remanded the case to the Magistrate directing him to record the statements of the witnesses named by the appellant. The Magistrate was directed to send for the appellant and ask whether he wishes a commission to issue to the Political:

Agent or other officer at Bahawalpur to examine the appellant's witnesses or have them examined under Sub-section (4), Section 503, in Bahawalpur State.

2. It appears that originally the witnesses, who are residents of the Bahawalpur State, were summoned by the Magistrate, but in spite of the service of the summonses on them they did not appear and consequently the Magistrate proceeded to judgment, holding that he:

could not coerce the witnesses to appear against their will and could not issue warrants against them in Bahawalpur State.

3. After the order of remand had been received by the Magistrate he ascertained the names and addresses of the witnesses from the accused and issued a commission for their examination under Section 503, Criminal P.C. to the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States, who is the officer representing the British Indian Government in the Bahawalpur State The Agent to the Governor-General, however, has returned the commission unserved with an intimation conveyed to the District Magistrate of Multan in his letter No. 4-J5616/5-9/22 dated 18th August 1927, regretting his inability to comply with the request with regard to the examination of the defence witnesses on the ground that there is no Resident Political Officer in Bahawalpur State, who can execute the commission. In this letter reference is made to a previous letter of 18th September 1922, to the District Magistrate of Multan in which for the same reasons a similar commission was returned unexecuted by the Agent to the Governor-General, Panjab States.

4. After a careful consideration of the grounds mentioned by the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States, for his inability to execute the commission, I have arrived at the conclusion that such grounds cannot be supported by any provision of law.

5. Section 503(1), Criminal P.C., confers the power inter alia on a District Magistrate, on being satisfied that such a course is necessary for the ends of justice to issue a commission to a District Magistrate of the 1st class, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the witness resides, to take evidence of such witness.

6. Section 503(2) authorizes the issue of a commission to the officer representing the British Indian Government in the territories of any Prince or Chief in India when the witness resides in such territory.

7. Section 503(3) provides that such officer shall proceed to the place where the witness is or shall summon the witness before him and shall take down his evidence in the same manner as in the trial of warrant cases under the Criminal Procedure Code.

8. Sub-Section (4) of the section further authorizes the officer representing the British Indian Government to delegate his powers and duties under the commission to any officer subordinate to him whose powers are not less than those of a Magistrate of the 1st class, in British India.

9. It will thus be observed that the Criminal Procedure Code nowhere speaks of a Resident Political Officer in the territories of any Prince or Chief in India, but of a Political Officer representing the British Indian Government in such territories irrespective of the actual place of residence of the officer concerned and also that once a commission has been issued by the District Magistrate or the other Courts mentioned in Section 503 to an officer representing the British Indian Government in such territory, it is the duty of the latter either to proceed where the witness is or to summon such witness before him and to