< 211 )
NONCHI HAMY o. CHRISTIAN.P. C., Colombo, 5,592.
Proclamation and attachment of property—Jurisdiction of Court—Warrantof arrest—Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 62 and 63.
A proclamation against a person and an order for the attachmentof his property under sections 62 and 63 of the Criminal ProcedureCode can be issued by such Court only as had issued in the firstinstance a warrant for the apprehension of such person.
N this case application was made by R. Abilina Hami to theSupreme Court that the orders of the Police Magistrate dated
respectively the 12th and 19th November, 1895, be cancelled. Bythe first order the Police Magistrate had issued a proclamationagainst the accused—applicant’s husband—under section 62 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code, and by the second he had orderedattachment of his property under section 63- No warrant for thearrest of the accused had in the first instance been issued by thePolice Magistrate who made the above orders.
De Saram, Acting C.C., had no cause to show against the ordersbeing discharged.
24th October, 1896. Withers, J., in discharging the aboveorders stated his reasons as follows :—
The prisoner, in the first instance, was charged before Mr. Philipde Saram, Police Magistrate of. Avis&wella, with a criminaloffence against the person of one Adonis Appu since deceased,and the Police Magistrate signed and issued a warrant for the arrestof the prisoner. That warrant, for some reason or another, was■ apparently not executed. Afterwards proceedings were takenin the Police Court of Colombo relative to the very offence'on accountof which the late Mr. Philip de Saram issued a warrant ofarrest against the prisoner ; and as the person of the prisoner hadup to that time not been secured, Mr. Moor, Police Magistrate,Colombo, having satisfied himself that the prisoner was avoidingarrest, ordered a written proclamation to be published requiringthe accused to appear at a' specified time and place. Thereafter,on the 19th November, he made a f urther order directing theattachment of the property belonging to the prisoner then previouslyproclaimed. These are the orders complained of which I havedischarged. Section 62 of the Criminal Procedure Code enactsas follows:—
“ If any court has ' reason to believe (whether after taking“ evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has“ been issued by it has absconded, or is concealing himself, so that“ such warrant cannot be executed, such court may publish a
( 212 )
October 24.Withers, 3.
“ written proclamation requiring him. to appear at a specified“ time not- less than thirty days from the date of publishing such“ proclamation.”
Now, it is clear from the language of this section that the onlyCourt competent to order such a written proclamation to bepublished is the Court which has' issued the warrant of arrest. Itis that Court which has to satisfy itself whether or not the personagainst whom it issued a warrant of arrest has absconded or isconcealing himself.-
Now, Mr. Philip .de Saram at the time presided over the PoliceCourt of Avisdwella, which is a Court of distinct jurisdiction from ,that of the Police Court of Colombo. Therefore Mr. Moor, asPolice Magistrate, Colombo, had no authority to order the publi-cation of this proclamation or the attachment of the prisoner’sproperty. There being no foundation for those orders they arenull and void.
NONCHI HAMY v. CHRISTIAN