SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ARUMUGAM v. VIJAYARATNAM et al.


Arumugam V. Vijayaratnam Et Al.,

Present: Sansoni J.
C. S. ARUMUGAM, Appellant, and A. VIJAYARATNAM
(Inspector of Police) et al, Respondents

S. C. 701-M. C. Jaffna, No. 2 (Extradition)

Extradition-Foreign warrant-Form of endorsement-Same warrant cannot be executed twice-Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, ss. 3, 13, 14, 26.

A warrant is sufficiently endorsed for the purpose of compliance with sections 13 and, 26 Of the fugitive Offenders Act if it bears the more signature of the authority endorsing ; the endorsement need not be specifically directed to the police officers or other officials entitled to execute the warrant.

Once a warrant has been executed, no further action can be taken on it. If, therefore, an offender arrested under it is discharged on the ground that there is not enough proof that it was issued by a person having lawful authority to issue it, he cannot be arrested again on the same warrant even if the officer executing it establishes that it was issued by lawful authority.

APPEAL from an order of the Magistrate's Court, Jaffna.

E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy, with E. B. Vannithamby and Daya Perera, for the appellant.

Douglas Jansze, Acting Solicito



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top