JUDGMENT : Chaturvedi, J. 1. Mr. Inamdar made it quite clear at the outset that considering that the question of issuing writs under S.226 of the Constitution of India is still under the consideration of a Full Bench of this Court (at Indore) he does not want to press his application for issue of a writ and therefore his application under S.491, Criminal Procedure Code alone for the production of Jagdish Prasad Goel who was arrested on 05-04-1950 at his residence in Lashkar should be considered. 2. The only information furnished on behalf of the non-applicant in connection with this arrest is that the said Jagdish Prasad was arrested in the night of 05-04-1950 by City Police Lashkar, under S.54, Criminal Procedure Code, on reasonable suspicion that he had committed offences under S.302 and S.120-B (I.P.C.) at Delhi. The Director of Intelligence Bureau Delhi had requested the D.I.G. of Madhya Bharat C.I.D. who issued wireless instructions to Lashkar Police for the arrest of the said Jagdish Prasad and in this way the arrest took place. The accused was then produced before the Additional District Magistrate Lashkar for extradition by the local police, who sent the case to the Sessions Court Gwalior; who in his turn has referred the case to the Chief Authority for Extradition. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, therefore, contends that Jagdish Prasad is being dealt with legally and he is not illegally or improperly detained. Reliance is also placed by him on Sub-cl. (7) of S.54, Criminal Procedure Code and R.1 (a) of chap.5 of the Interstatal Matters Manual of Gwalior State. Police diaries and Extradition files have also been put up for our perusal; but we regret to observe that no letter or copy of letter from the Director, Intelligence Bureau, Delhi, or from other police or C.I.D. authority at Delhi to the Madhya Bharat Police or C.I.D. in this connection, has been forthcoming. No affidavit about this Delhi communication from a responsible police officer who saw the said communication was even filed before us. A copy of the wireless message from D.I.G., C.I.D., Indore to Deputy Superintendent Police C.I.D. at Gwalior dated 5-7-1950 is the only thing produced before us and this is to the following effect: "Your wireless message of date regarding Goel. A copy of the wireless message from D.I.G., C.I.D., Indore to Deputy Superintendent Police C.I.D. at Gwalior dated 5-7-1950 is the only thing produced before us and this is to the following effect: "Your wireless message of date regarding Goel. You are to arrest Goal under S.54, Criminal Procedure Code and 302 and 120 B as requested by D.I.B. Delhi and start a S.54 Diary." 3. We have no doubt that in urgent cases arrest can be ordered by telephonic message or by wireless message; and there may have been trunkcall conversation about this arrest. The, word "requisition" in S.54 (1)(ix) is quite general and clearly covers a message communicated by telephone or wireless. But it is necessary for a police officer when he is asking another police officer to do what he could have done himself to disclose under S.54(1) not only the identity of the person whom he wishes to be arrested but also the offence or the reason for which the arrest is to be made. Gurucharan v. Province of Madras, AIR (29) 1942 mad. 539 at p.546: (44 Cr.L.J. 45). It is strange that the wireless message in this case does not seem as yet to have been confirmed in writing. 4. The name 'Goel' in the wireless message does not indicate precisely and clearly that it was Jagdish Prasad Goel who was meant and a mere reference to S.302 and S.120B can give not indication whether a murder took place at Delhi or at some other place or at what date. Letter No.3011 dated 03-05-1950 (in fileNo.6/50 Extradition) from the City Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Gird also states that except for a copy of this wireless message no other information is available and this leaves us quite in dark about the whole affair. In fact up to 11-05-1950 no additional information was available on the subject; and in our opinion the brief and cryptic wireless message could not have been a valid foundation for the arrest of Jagdish Prasad Goel. Further, in the absence of more particulars, which even after a period of more than one month, are not forthcoming, the learned City Magistrate was not justified in detaining the accused on the basis of very slender material produced by the police before him. 5. In In the matter of Charu Chandra, 44 Cal. 76: (AIR (4) 1917 cal. Further, in the absence of more particulars, which even after a period of more than one month, are not forthcoming, the learned City Magistrate was not justified in detaining the accused on the basis of very slender material produced by the police before him. 5. In In the matter of Charu Chandra, 44 Cal. 76: (AIR (4) 1917 cal. 253: 18 Cr.L.J. 78), it was laid down that the "reasonable suspicion" and "credible information" under S.54 (7) must be based upon definite facts which the police officer must consider for himself before he acts under this section, and he cannot take shelter under the belief or judgment of another police officer. This is still good law, Subodh Chandra v. Emperor, AIR (12) (1925 cal. 278: (26 Cr.L.J. 625). What is a 'reasonable suspicion' or 'credible information' must depend on the circumstances of each particular case, but it must be at least founded on some definite fact tending to throw suspicion on the person arrested and not on mere vague surmise or information. The wireless message and other papers, based only on it, give no facts whatsoever and merely state that one Goel is required in a murder committed somewhere, nobody knows when. They do not set out even so much in the shape of facts as were set out in the communication upon which the police acted in the case of Charu Chandra 44 Cal. 76: (AIR (4) 1917 Cal 253: 18 Cr.L.J. 73) or Subodh Chandra v. Emperor, AIR (12) 1925 Cal. 278: (26 Cr.L.J. 625) referred to above. In our opinion, the arrest of Jagdish Prasad Goel and his detention is not one authorised by law and he is entitled to his immediate release. 6. The argument that the High Court should not interfere in extradition proceedings, is not without foundation; but this Court is fully authorised to see whether there is any patent and palpable defect visible in the authority by which the person having custody detains any person. If the authority under which a person is being detained is on the face of it illegal and invalid, as we find to be in this case, this Court can certainly take notice of it and release the accused. 7. If the authority under which a person is being detained is on the face of it illegal and invalid, as we find to be in this case, this Court can certainly take notice of it and release the accused. 7. For reasons enumerated above, we hold that the arrest of the accused in this case was improper and the detention is unwarranted by law; and we, therefore, order that Jagdish Prasad Goel should immediately be set at liberty. Under the special circumstances of the case we pass no order about costs. 8. Shinde, J. -I agree.