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 Solicitor-General, with Sam. Wijesinha, Crown Counsel, for the respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 6, 1954. SANSONI J.-

The appellant, who has also filed an application for revision, is dissatisfied with an order of the Magistrate of Jaffna directing that he be handed over to an Inspector of Police of the Federation of Malaya for removal to Malaya. This officer first gave evidence before the Magistrate on 23rd April, 1954, after the appellant had been arrested. That arrest was upon a warrant issued by the Magistrate of Penang, sitting at George Town, and endorsed on 22nd April, 1954, by the Magistrate of Jaffna. The offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant is criminal breach of trust of 12,000 dollars while acting as an agent. After inquiry the Magistrate of Jaffna on 9th May, 1954, discharged the appellant as he was not satisfied that the warrant had been issued by a person having lawful authority to issue it. If the Magistrate had paid heed to section 14 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, he would have required proof of this important element before he endorsed the warrant-see Kandasamy v. Bandaranayake [1 (1947) 48 N. L. R. 449.]. The far-reaching consequences of his failure to do so will presently appear.

Subsequently a copy of the warrant, which had also been signed by the Magistrate of Penang and which the Inspector of Police had brought with him, was placed before the Magistrate of Jaffna who endorsed that copy on 24th May, 1954. The appellant was arrested again and produced before the Magistrate. After inquiry the order now appealed from was made as the Inspector was then in a position to establish that the Magistrate of Penang had lawful authority to issue the warrant.

The appellant's counsel raised several grounds of objection to the order but I intend to deal with only the two most substantial objections raised :-

(1) That the warrant had been executed once, after the first endorsement, and no further action could be taken on it.

(2) That the warrant was not properly endorsed.

As regards the second objection, it was submitted that merely signing on the back of the warrant under the words " warrant endorsed for execution within the jurisdiction of this Court", was not a sufficient compliance with sections 13 and 26 of the Act which deal with the backing of warrants.

It will be noted that section 3, like section 13, stipulates that a warrant should be endorsed " in manner provided by this Act ", and section 26 particularises how a warrant should be endorsed. It was held by de Villiers J.P., and Bristowe, J., in R. v. Robertson [1 (1912) T. P. D. 10.] that a warrant is sufficiently endorsed by the mere signature of the authority endorsing, and that the endorsement need not be specifically directe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document