JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule to show cause why an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, admitting to ball the Petitioner, Raj Kumar Datta, who had been arrested under a warrant issued by the Political Resident of Manipur, and directing him to appear before the said Political Resident should not be set aside. The facts are that there was some correspondence between Messrs. Sanderson & Co., acting on behalf of one Tottal Sijo, and the Petitioner's attorney, with regard to certain books of account, which the Petitioner was said to have withheld but which he denied having done. Subsequently, the Petitioner was arrested by the Commissioner of Police under a warrant issued by the Political Resident of Manipur, in which it was stated that the Petitioner was charged with offences under secs. 408 and 417, Penal Code. It is not stated in the warrant where these offences are said to hare been committed --whether in British India or in Manipur. 2. On being arrested under this warrant, the Petitioner was taken before the Chief Presidency Magistrate who admitted him to bail, but directed him to appear before the Political Resident of Manipur. It is complained that this order was illegal, (1) because the warrant does not show where the offences are alleged to have been committed, and (2) because the warrant had not been endorsed under sec 8, Act XV of 1903 and therefore, the Chief Presidency Magistrate had no authority to pass the order he did. 3. The Chief Presidency Magistrate states in a letter that he has no cause to show against the rule. But Mr. Barton, counsel, appears for the Crown and contends that we have no authority over the Political Resident of Manipur--also that the Chief Presidency Magistrate's order was legal. 4. We have clearly no authority over the Political Resident of Manipur. We do not propose to exercise any over him or his proceedings. His warrant for the arrest of the Petitioner, though it does not state where the alleged offences were committed, may be legal or otherwise. 5. But we consider that the pleader's second argument must prevail. There was no endorsement on the warrant by the Political Resident, as required by sec. 8 of the Extradition Act, authorising the Chief Presidency Magistrate to admit the Petitioner to bail. 5. But we consider that the pleader's second argument must prevail. There was no endorsement on the warrant by the Political Resident, as required by sec. 8 of the Extradition Act, authorising the Chief Presidency Magistrate to admit the Petitioner to bail. The Chief Presidency Magistrate had therefore no right to do so, or to direct the Petitioner to appear before the Political Resident of Manipur. We must therefore make this rule absolute and set aside the Chief Presidency Magistrate's order as prayed, which we accordingly do.