JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Petitioner asks for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling upon the Officer-in-Charge of the Titlagarh Police Station, District Bolangir to show cause why he should not be released from custody. 2. His case is that he was arrested on 28-6-1964 on a non-bailable warrant issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Siliguri in West Bengal. While arrested, he was not supplied with a copy of the complaint against him and was not informed of the charges under which he was arrested. He had never been to siliguri and did not know one Waliram Khetwani, the complainant. The warrant showed that he was the complainant and that the prosecution was u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. On the aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner asserted that his arrest and custody under bail are unlawful. A plea had been taken that the warrant of arrest stood in the name of the Petitioner as the son of one Balaram Prusti, though the Petitioner is the sons of Bhagaban Prusti. After counter-affidavit was filed by the opposite parties, this plea was abandoned in the course of argument. 3. Mr. Asok Das raised two contentions-(1) the Criminal proceeding having been instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued u/s 204, Sub-section (18), Code of Criminal Procedure shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint under that section. The provision is mandatory and the copy of the complaint not having been served upon the Petitioner, the proceeding is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed, and (2) the copy of the complaint not having been served, there is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Both the contentions require careful examination 4. Section 204, Sub-section (18), Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that in a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. This Sub-section was introduced for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Section 28 of the Central Act 26 of 1955. Though the word "shall" has been used, this provision is directory and its non-compliance would not render the proceeding being void or without jurisdiction. It does not, however, mean that the Magistrate would be permitted to violate the compliance of the provisions with impunity. Though the word "shall" has been used, this provision is directory and its non-compliance would not render the proceeding being void or without jurisdiction. It does not, however, mean that the Magistrate would be permitted to violate the compliance of the provisions with impunity. On the summons or warrants being served, the accused can make a grievance of the non-service of the copy of the complaint and the Magistrate is under legal obligation to furnish a copy thereof. The non-compliance, however, does not vitiate the proceeding. This question was fully discussed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Jagannath Sahu v. State and Anr. 31 C.L.T. 563. The decision lays down the correct law. The first contention fails. 5. The second contention is closely inter linked with the first. The first contention having failed, the second has no merit. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India enacts that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The Petitioner in writ application admits that from the warrant of arrest served on him, he could know that the complainant was one Waliram Khetwani of Silguri and the complaint was u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. There is no grievance that he was denied the right to consult or to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The only attack is that a copy of the complaint was not supplied. If the non-supply of the copy of the complaint is not mandatory, but is directory and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the warrant, there is no legal detention. In this case, the grounds of arrest were known to the Petitioner from the warrant itself. 6. That apart, in The State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh and Another their Lordships clearly held that Article 22(1) and (2) do not extend to arrest effected under a warrant issued by a Court under a particular statute. They classified arrests into two broad categories, namely, arrests under warrants issued by a Court and arrests otherwise than under such warrants. That apart, in The State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh and Another their Lordships clearly held that Article 22(1) and (2) do not extend to arrest effected under a warrant issued by a Court under a particular statute. They classified arrests into two broad categories, namely, arrests under warrants issued by a Court and arrests otherwise than under such warrants. Their conclusion is to the effect: The language of Article 22(1) and (2) indicates that the fundamental right conferred by it gives protection against such arrests as are effected otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the allegation or accusation that the arrested person has, or is suspected to have, committed, or is about or likely to commit an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or some activity prejudicial to the public or the State interest. In other words, there is indication in the language of Article 22(1) and (2) that it was designed to give protection against the act of the executive or other non- judicial authority. Thus, this Article has no application to cases of detention under warrants issued by Courts of law under various statutes. In Swami Hariharanand Saraswati and Others Vs. The Jailor I/C Dist. Jail, Banaras followed the Supreme Court decision, though, in the particular facts and circumstances of that case, their Lordships came to the conclusion that, Article 22 had application. 7. In this case, warrant has been issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Silguri in West Bengal on a complaint u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. Law must take its own course. The Petitioner should appear before the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Siliguri and should ask for a copy of the complaint. Article 22 of the Constitution has no application to the warrant under consideration. The second contention has no merit. 8. Both the contentions fail and the writ application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/ -. Ahmad, C.J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed