JUDGMENT R.R. PRASAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 21/06/2014, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in Special Case No. 15(B) of 2009, whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner. 3. The ground for challenge of the said order is that the Magistrate without satisfying himself that the petitioner has been evading arrest, has passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest non-bailable against the petitioner and, thereby, it is not in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, it was submitted that there has been inconsistency in the statement with respect to matter relating to evading or arrest in the statement, made in the requisition, memo of evidence and in the counter affidavit. In this regard, it was pointed out that in the requisition, upon which warrant of arrest has been issued, statement has been made that on three occasions the house of the petitioner was raided, whereas in the memo of evidence, submitted before the Court below, two dates have been referred to as 13/02/2014 as well as 18/02/2014, whereas in the counter affidavit, filed in this case, five dates have been mentioned as the dates on which the house of this petitioner was raided. Those dates has been referred to as 13/02/2014, 18/02/2014, 03/06/2014, 05/06/2014 and 09/06/2014. By referring those dates mentioned in the counter affidavit, it was submitted that though the statement is there that when the I.O. raided the house of the petitioner the persons living in the neighbourhood disclosed to that the petitioner has been evading arrest, but the I.O. has not recorded his own satisfaction that the petitioner has been evading arrest and as such, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 4. It was also submitted that these dates are the dates, which are subsequent to the filing of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, which is still pending and in that event, the petitioner cannot be said to have been evading arrest or absconding and under the circumstances, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 5. As against this, Mr. 5. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that in the memo of evidence two dates have been mentioned, i.e. 13/02/2014 and 18/02/2014 as the dates on which the house of this petitioner was raided. That memo of evidence had been prepared on 25/02/2014. Thereafter also the I.O. raided the house of the petitioner and, therefore, the subsequent dates on which the house was raided, have been given in the requisition and also in the counter affidavit and under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been inconsistency with respect to the statements regarding dates on which the I.O. raided the house of the petitioner and that from perusal of the memo of evidence, requisition submitted before the trial court and also the statements made in the counter affidavit, it would appear that on the dates, referred to above, when the I.O. with the help of the local police station, raided the house of the petitioner, he was found absconding and the said fact has been recorded in the memo of evidence, requisition and also in the counter affidavit and, therefore, one can easily come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been evading his arrest and, hence, the order impugned never suffers from any illegality as the court after being satisfied that the petitioner is accused in a case of non-bailable offence and has been evading arrest and had not responded to the notice issued in terms of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed the impugned order and, thereby, the Court is absolutely justified in passing the impugned order dated 21/06/2014. 6. I do find substance in the submissions, advanced on behalf of the Vigilance. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, I do find that a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the petitioner admittedly did not respond to it. Subsequently, it does appear from the documents referred to above that the police raided the house of the petitioner as many as at 5 occasions, but the petitioner was not found in the house and in that event, the I.O. took it that the petitioner has been evading arrest. In such situation, the Court cannot be said to have erred in passing the impugned order. 8. In such situation, the Court cannot be said to have erred in passing the impugned order. 8. At this stage, I may refer to a provision of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: “73. Warrant may be directed to any person. (1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence, and is evading arrest. (2) Such person shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of the warrant, and shall execute it if the person for whose arrest it was issued, is in, or enters on, any land or other property under his charge. (3) When the person against whom such warrant is issued is arrested, he shall be made over with the warrant to the nearest police officer, who shall cause him to be taken before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, unless security is taken under Section 71.” 9. From bare perusal of the section, it is manifest that it confers a power upon the Magistrate to issue warrant for arrest of three classes of persons, namely: (i) Escaped convict. (ii) A proclaimed offender. (iii) A person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. 10. I may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in a case of State through CBI vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, (1997) 2 East Cr. Case 124 (SC): AIR 1997 SC 2494 , wherein Their Lordship after taking into consideration the aforesaid provision as enshrined under Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also recommendation of the Law commission in its 41st report did observe in paragraph 20 of the said judgment as under: “That Section 73 confers a power upon a Magistrate to issue a warrant and that it can be exercised by him during investigation also, can be best understood with reference to Section 155 of the Code. As already noticed under this section a police officer can investigate into a non-cognizable case with the order of a Magistrate and may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation which he may exercise in a cognizable case, except that he cannot arrest without warrant. As already noticed under this section a police officer can investigate into a non-cognizable case with the order of a Magistrate and may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation which he may exercise in a cognizable case, except that he cannot arrest without warrant. If with the order of a Magistrate the police starts investigation intoa non-cognizable and non-bailable offence, [like Section 466 or 467 (part-1) of the Indian penal Code] and if during investigation the Investigating Officer intends to arrest the person accused of the offence he has to seek for and obtain a warrant of arrest from the Magistrate. If the accused evade the arrest, the only course left open to the Investigating Officer to ensure his powers under Section 73 and thereafter those relating to proclamation and attachment. In such an eventuality, the Magistrate can legitimately exercise his powers under Section 73 for the person to be apprehended is “accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.” Consequently, it was held that Section 73 of the Code is of general application and that in course of investigation a Court can issue a warrant in exercise of power thereunder to apprehend, inter alia, a person who is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.” 11. Thus, it is evident that in course of investigation the Court may issue a warrant of arrest in exercise of power as enshrined under the Code to apprehend inter alia a persons, who is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. 12. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the order impugned and, hence, this application stands dismissed. 13. Findings recorded in this case, shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner.