[IN REVISION.]

1917  Present: Shaw J.

ALLES v. PALANIAPPA CHETTY.

P. C. Colombo, 5,361.

Fugitive offender-Warrant for arrest-Offence committed by person residing out of Ceylon-Revision-Writ of prohibition.

To render a person liable to be apprehended under the Fugitive Offenders Act there must be an offence committed in some part of His Majesty's dominions, and subsequent to the offence the offender must have left that part.

The provisions for apprehension do not apply to a person who in one part of His Majesty's dominions commits an offence in, or abets the commission of an offence in, another part, and who was not in that part at the time of the offence, and has not since been there. Such a person can, in general, be prosecuted for the offence in that part of His Majesty's dominions in which he was when he committed the offence, and if it is more convenient that he should be removed for trial to another part, he can be so removed under the provisions of section 85 of the Act.

The powers of revision given to the Supreme Court by sections 21 and 40 of the Courts Ordinance are very wide and general; they might be exercised in respect of non-summary proceedings.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Bawa, K.C. (with him Tisseverasinghe), for petitioner.-This is not a case to which the Fugitive Offenders Act, 44 and 45 Vict., c. 69, applies. The accused is not a " fugitive offender " within the meaning of section 2 of the Act (14 Halsbury, s. 987, p. 421).

R. v. Nellins 1[ 58 L. J. M. C. 157] is a decision on the Extradition Acts, 33 and 34 Vict., c. 52, and 36 and 87 Vict., c. 60. Section 26 of 33 and 34 Vict., c. 52, does not require that the offender should have left the jurisdiction within which he committed the offence to become amenable to extradition; whereas section 2 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 44 and 45 Vict., c. 69, makes it a condition precedent to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of the offender.

The application for the warrant is not made bono fide (see section 19 of the Fugitive Offenders Act). A number of civil actions are pending against the accused at the instance of the complainant, and in one case judgment had been obtained, and it is now pending in appeal. The accused has denied his liability to pay the several claims. The application will cause grave prejudice to his appeal and to his defence in the pending oases. This is an attempt with

the indirect object of bringing the accused within the jurisdiction  of the District Court of Colombo so as to make him amenable to
arrest in the civil actions. To obtain a warrant for that purpose is an abuse of The process of the Court. (Pooley v. Witham.1)

The warrant has been irregularly issued, as the procedure under the Act has not been followed. See English Home Office Circular dated February 4, 1882, quoted in Kirchner's book on " Fugitive Offenders. " See also Ceylon Government Gazette Supplement No. 5,005 dated July 18, 1890, pages 1-16, and also Ceylon Government Gazette No. 4,880 dated December 16, 1887, page 2922.

[SHAW J.-These are mere instructions, and have not the force of law.]

They are published for the guidance of Magistrates.

Counsel also referred to Ceylon Ordinance No. 10 of 1877, Orders in Council published in the Ceylon Government Gazette No. 4,826 dated August 12, 1878, page 800, and January 22, 1886, page 108, to Julius Kaufmann'8 Casie,2 and R. v. Jacobi.3
On the merits counsel contended that no offence had been committed.

Morgan de Saram (with him Jayatileke), for respondent.-An application for a writ of prohibition, and not for revision, is the proper proceeding. The powers of the Supreme Court in revision are contained in section 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and are limited to cases " already tried or pending trial, " and the present is not one of these cases. This is a non-summary case. Where prohibition lies, appeal and revision are out of