Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudukad and produced before the Sub-Magistrate, Mukundapuram, in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Magistrate of Jaipur City in Rajasthan and was released on his executing a bail bond for his appearance before the Jaipur Magistrate on 4-10-1960. Subsequently he appeared before the Mukundapuram Magistrate and moved the petition alleging that he was not the person mentioned in the warrant and the arrest was made due to either a deliberate or an accidental mistake in identity. The learned Magistrate returned the petition to be presented before the Jaipur Magistrate. The petitioner challenged the correctness of that order in a revision petition filed before the District Magistrate, Trichur. The learned District Magistrate while observing that it was not proper for the Magistrate to return the petition without disposing it of one way or the other held on a consideration of the materials available, that it appears to him that the person apprehended under the warrant was really the person intended by the court which issued the warrant and dismissed the revision petition. That order is now sought to be revised. 2. The main ground urged before me is that there is no evidence to justify the finding that the petitioner is the person mentioned in the warrant issued by the Jaipur Court. I do not think there is any justification for this complaint. S.85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the proceedings to be followed when a warrant of arrest is executed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same and S.86 (1) details the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate before whom the person arrested is brought. S.86 [1] reads as follows: "86 (1) Such Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall, if the person arrested appears to be the person intended by the Court which issued the warrant, direct his removal in custody to such Court." The use of the words "appears to be" is significant. An elaborate enquiry as to the identity of the person does not seem to have been contemplated. The Magistrate is to be satisfied prima facie that the person arrested is the person mentioned in the warrant. 3. The petitioner here is described in the warrant as K.K. Nair, Manager, Asoka Industries, Alagappanagar. An elaborate enquiry as to the identity of the person does not seem to have been contemplated. The Magistrate is to be satisfied prima facie that the person arrested is the person mentioned in the warrant. 3. The petitioner here is described in the warrant as K.K. Nair, Manager, Asoka Industries, Alagappanagar. In his petition the petitioner describes himself as Kunjunni Nair. The Sub-Inspector of Police who arrested the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the District Magistrate to the effect that there is no mistake regarding the identity of the person and that the person described in the warrant as K.K. Nair, Manager, Asoka Industries Alagappanagar is none other than Kunjunni Nair, the petitioner. He also affirmed that there is only one concern in Alagappanagar by name Asoka Industries and there is no person by the name employed there, other than the revision petitioner. In the affidavit filed by him the petitioner did not deny that he is employed in the Asoka Industries, Alagappanagar, nor did he say that he is not known as K.K. Nair. He only stated that he is not the manager of the Asoka Industries, Alagappanagar. Before this Court also the Sub-Inspector has filed an affidavit to the same effect. Hence there is no justification for interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned District Magistrate that it appears to him that the petitioner is the person who was intended to be arrested by the warrant. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the observations' made by Beaumount, C.J., in In re Sagarmal Khemraj - AIR. 1940 Bombay 397 that: "that the power of directing the arrest of some person at a place outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Court, particularly when that place is far removed from the local limits, is one which should be exercised with the utmost circumspection." With respect I endorse the correctness of the proposition. But that case was one where the warrant issued was not sufficiently definite either in the name of the person to whom the warrant was addressed or in the description of the person to be arrested unlike the present case where there is no such ambiguity. 4. But that case was one where the warrant issued was not sufficiently definite either in the name of the person to whom the warrant was addressed or in the description of the person to be arrested unlike the present case where there is no such ambiguity. 4. A further objection was taken before this Court that the warrant issued by the First Class Magistrate, Jaipur City was forwarded to the Secretary, Government of Kerala who in turn forwarded the same to the Sub-Magistrate, Mukundapuram for execution and as such the provision of S.83 [1] of the Code which requires the warrant to be forwarded to the Magistrate within the local limits' of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed, has been violated. It is conceded that the warrant was forwarded to the Secretary to the Government who in turn forwarded the same to the Sub-Magistrate. However that will not in any way affect the validity of the warrant or the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Mukundapuram to execute the warrant. S.83 [1] enjoins that: "When a warrant is to be executed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, such Court may instead of directing such warrant to a police officer, forward the same by post or otherwise to any Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police in a presidency-town within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed" It is only a provision enabling the Magistrate who issues a warrant to be executed outside his jurisdiction, to forward the same to the authorities within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed, instead of directing the warrant to a police officer, and it does not specify the route or channel the warrant may take. 5. There is no merit in the revision and it is dismissed. Dismissed.