JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner has prayed in this revision for a direction to the Magistrate to hold an enquiry as contemplated u/s 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ?referred to as the ?Code? before direct ing the Petitioner to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Madhya Pradesh, which Magistrate has Jurisdiction to try the offence in question. 2. The Petitioner was arrested by the Madhya Pradesh Police in connection with Mahasamud P. S. Case No. 63 of 1986 on the allegation that he had committed an offence u/s 42. Indian Penal Code, and was produced before the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal, who remanded the Petitioner to custody. The Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge released him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety for the like amount on condition that the Petitioner would appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, on 24-10-1986. failing which his bail bond was ordered to be cancelled. The aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge was later on modified by order dated 23-10-1986 by which the Petitioner was directed to appear in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund in Madhya Pradesh on 20-11-1986. In the meantime, the Petitioner approached this Court and obtained an order of stay regarding implementation of the direction of the Sessions Judge. 3. Mr. Ray, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that u/s 187 of the Code, the Magistrate is duty bound to enquire into the offence in question and to send the accused to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to enquire into or try such offence, if he sees reason to believe that the offence in question has been committed outside his jurisdiction. According to Mr. Ray, when the police arrests an accused within the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate in respect of an offence committed beyond the local jurisdiction and is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate before sending the accused to the other Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the offence in question is triable must be satisfied that all the pre-conditions of Section 187 of the Code are fulfilled. In other words, the magistrate must institute an enquiry and must come to the conclusion that, (i) the offence has been committed outside the local limits of his jurisdiction; (ii) the offender is within his local jurisdiction; (iii) the offence is one which could not be tried within his jurisdiction under the provisions of sections of Section 177 to 185 of the Code; and, (iv) the offence must be one triable in India. This, according to Mr. Ray, must be on the basis of an enquiry before him and the Magistrate should not mechanically direct production of the accused before the magistrate in whose jurisdiction the offence committed is triable. Since such an enquiry has not been conducted and the impugned order of the Magistrate has been mechanically passed, this Court should direct the Magistrate to hold an enquiry. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Ray appearing for the Petitioner. 4. Section l87 of the Code is an enabling power of the Magistrate to issue summons or warrant for offence Committed beyond his local jurisdiction. This section corresponds to Section 186 of the repealed Code. Undoubtedly, Section 187 of the Code deals with a case in which the Court which has jurisdiction has not taken cognisance of the offence, and the offence is brought to the notice of a Magistrate who is not competent to try it. In such a case, on an accused being produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate may institute an enquiry as contem plated in Section 167 of the Code. But it cannot be held that the Magistrate must hold an enquiry before directing production of the accused in the Court by which the offence is triable or before releasing the accused on bail and directing him to appear before the concerned Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed. It is also equally well settled that where a Magistrate takes cognisance of an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction and has issued a warrant u/s 80 of the Code for the arrest of a person living outside the limits of his jurisdiction, the Magistrate before whom such person is produced u/s 80 cannot hold an enquiry u/s 187. Section 187 does not override the provisions in Sections 70 to 81 of the Code which deal with execution of warrants of arrest. Section 187 does not override the provisions in Sections 70 to 81 of the Code which deal with execution of warrants of arrest. In my opinion, the order of the Magistrate remanding the accused to custody and the order of the Sessions Judge releasing the accused on bail and directing him to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First. Class, Mahasamund, on a particular day which Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the offence, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, merely because the Magistrate did not institute an enquiry as contemplated u/s 187 of the Code nor has there been any miscarriage of justice which requires interference of this Court in exercise of the inherent power. In the present case, the police which arrested the Petitioner prayed that the Petitioner be remanded to jail custody for some time during which time they would obtain the production warrant from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Madhya Pradesh, under whose local jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the best course for the Magistrate would be to require the police to cause production of a warrant from the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have been committed and before whom the accused has to face his trial. In the circumstances, as stated above, I would direct that the Petitioner shall continue to be on bail as directed by the Sessions Judge till a production warrant is produced before the Magistrate from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Madhya Pradesh, and on production of such a warrant, the Magistrate would deal with the Petitioner in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter-VI of the Code, more, particularly, Section 80 of the Code. The Criminal Revision is disposed of accordingly.