1955Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.ARUMUGAM, AppeUant, and A. VIJAYARETNAM(Inspector of Police, Federation of Malaya) and another, Respondents
8. G. 1450—M. C. Jaffna, 272jr..
-fugitive Offenders Act, 1881—Section 29—Warrant of arrest—Authentication of it.v. The evidence before a Court in Ceylon of a witness who states on oath thathe was present at the issue of, and identifies the signature bn, the warrant: ofarrest constitutes authentication “ by .the oath of Some witness ” within themeaning of section 29 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881..
H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Arumugam v. Vijayaretnam
jA-PPEAL from an order of the Magistrate’s Court, Jaffna.
8. Nademn, Q.C., with E. B. Sathmkulasinghe, for the arrested person,appellant.
A. C. Alles, Crown Counsel, with 8. 8. Wijesinha, Crown Coun sel,for the Attorney-General..
Cur. adv. wilt.
December 13,1955. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Magistrate, Jaffna,directing the appellant to be taken in custody by the 1st respondent<who is a Malayan Inspector of Police) and to be produced before theFirst Magistrate of Georgetown, Penang. The appellant was arrestedin Ceylon upon the authority of a warrant of arrest, purporting to havebeen issued by the First Magistrate of Georgetown, and “ backed ”by the Magistrate of Jaffna. The only question which counsel for theappellant has been able to press seriously is that the order under appealis bad on the ground that the original warrant of arrest was not dulyauthenticated as required by the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, whichauthorises the making of the order.
Section 29 of the Act provides that a warrant is deemed to be duly
authenticated if both the following conditions are satisfied:—>
that it purports to be signed by a Magistrate of the territory in
which it was issued ; and
either that it is authenticated by the oath of some witness;
or that it is authenticated by the official seal of the Governor of theterritory.
Mr. Nadesan has argued that the authentication “ by the oath ofsome witness ” refers to an endorsement on the warrant by some person,stating on oath that he is a witness to the signature of the Magistrate.I do not Agree that such is the plain meaning of the term “ authenticationby oath of some witness ” ; nor do I think that a mere writing purportingto be a statement made on oath in a foreign country could have beenintended to be a sufficient authentication of the signature of a Magistrateto a warrant of arrest. On the other hand, the evidence before a Court-in this country of a witness who states on oath that he was present atthe issue of, and identifies the signature on, the warrant of arrest, affordsa proper and usual mode of proof of the signature; it is also the mode,to which the term used in the section appears in its ordinary, connotation,to refer. The evidence led in the present case amply fulfils the require-ments of the section as I understand them,
• Even if that view be incorrect, the second mode of authentication’perfhitted by the section has been complied with. The warrant of arrestprurports-to be authenticated by the signature and seal of the Besident
H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Jayakody v. Pedris
Commissioner, Penang. Under the relevant Malayan law, which hasbeen duly proved in these proceedings, the Resident Commissioneris the officer administering the Government of Penang ; and “ Governor ”in section 29 of the Fugitive Offenders Act includes the officer adminis-tering the Government of a British possession.
The appeal was dismissed for these reasons.
ARUMUGAM, Appellant, and A. VIJAYARETNAM (Inspector of Police, Federation of M