Back
IN RE GANAPATHIPILLAI POLICE COURT
NLR21V481
[IN REVISION.]
Present: De Sampayo J. In re GANAPATHIPILLAI.
P. C. Colombo, 8. 86.
Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881-Power of Supreme Court to revise orders of
Magistrate under the Act-Act applicable to Kedah-Warrant authenticated by
British Adviser of Kedah held sufficient.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to revise the orders made by a Police
Magistrate under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
By the Order in Council of October 24, 1916, the Fugitive Offenders Act is made
applicable to the States mentioned therein (including Kedah, in the Malay
Peninsula) as if they were British Possessions, and the Order in Council of
January 2, 1918, by which, inter alia, Ceylon and Kedah were grouped together
for the purpose of inter-colonial backing of warrants under part II. of the Act,
does not restrict the effect of the former Order of 1916, and, consequently,
part IV. of the Act was held applicable to Kedah.
A warrant signed by the Chief Judge of the High Court of Kedah and authenticated
by the British Adviser was held to be duly authenticated under the Act.
THIS
was an application for the revision of an order of the 1 Police Magistrate
of Colombo refusing to order one Ganapathipillai to be returned to Kedah, for
whose arrest a warrant had been issued by the High Court of Kedah under the
Fugitive Offenders Act. The Supreme Court, after hearing the Solicitor-General,
ordered notice to be served on Ganapathipillai.
A. St. V. Jayawardene (with him Balasingham and Croos-Dabrera), for the accused
(Ganapathipillai).-The application for revision is irregular. The procedure is
laid down in the Fugitive Offenders Act itself. The right of appeal is expressly
given in two matters (see section 17 and 19). Where no right of appeal is so
given, there is no right of appeal. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code and the Courts Ordinance as to the powers of the Supreme Court in revision
do not apply to proceedings under the Fugitive Offenders Act. It was held in
India that a Magistrate acting under the Fugitive Offenders Act is not subject
to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court. See 38 Cal. 547; see also 11 Mad.
26. No appeal lies from an order of this kind (see 14 Halsbury 427). Counsel
also referred to 41 Cal. 400; 42 Cal. 793.
The part of the Act which applies to convicted prisoners is section 34. The
Order in Council of January 2, 1918 (see. Government Gazette of March 28, 1918),
which groups Ceylon with Kedah,
refers only to the inter-colonial backing 61 warrants in part II. Inn
China- Section 34 is in part IV., and is not referred to in the said Order in
Council.
The Order in Council of October 24, 1916, does not refer "to Ceylon. The Courts
in Kedah cannot ask for surrender of a convicted person acting under section 34
of the Act.
The warrant in question is not duly authenticated as required by section 29. It
is authenticated by the British Adviser. That is not enough. The signature of
the Judge has not been proved as required by the Act.
Akbar, Acting S.-G. (with him Dias, C.C.), for the Crown.-It was held in Ceylon
that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to act in revision in these matters. See
Alles v. Palaniappa Chetty.1
The Indian cases were decided under the Extradition Act, the provisions of which
are different from the Fugitive Offenders Act, Sections 21 and 40 of the Courts
Ordinance give the Supreme Court ample powers to deal in revision with an
application of this kind. Counsel also referred to P. C. Colombo, 6,142; 2 The
King v. Noordeen; 3 41 Cal. 400; 42 Cal. 793.
It is not necessary that section 34 should be specially brought into force in
any place by a special Order in Council. Section 36 gives power to the King to
apply the Act to other than British Colonies. The Order in Council of 1916
introduced the whole Act to Kedah, although it was not a British Colony or
Possession. Both the Orders in Council of 1916 and 1918 s
