Gokul Prasad, J.
1. It seems that in the early part of February last one Niadar made a complaint against Mawashi and Naurang under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code for the abduction of his wife, Musammat Hardei. The Magistrate examined the complainant and, on the complainant stating that a warrant should be given to him for bringing the woman to the Court or else the accused would remove her from their house the Magistrate issued a bailable warrant for her arrest. Two constables accompanied the complainant and arrested the woman. No one stood, surety for her and, as they were taking the woman along, the accused came up and rescued the woman, but very little hurt was caused to the policemen. They were tried by a Magistrate of the second Class and convicted. They went up in appeal to the District Magistrate who dismissed the appeal saying that there was no cause for interference as the offence had been brought home to them. The points raised before me in revision are two,--(1) That the order for the arrest of the woman who was not an accused person was illegal, and (2), that the Magistrate had not recorded his reasons in writing as is required by the express provisions of Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case of Sukheswar Phukan v. Emperor 11 Ind. Cas. 593 : 38 C. 789 : 15 C.W.N. 1001 : 15 C.L.J. 186 : 12 Cr. L.J. 409 is quoted in support of this contention. I have not been referred to any decision of this Court on the point. I have carefully gone through the case above-mentioned. The Calcutta case was decided ex parte in the absence of any appearance on behalf of the Crown. The only thing to guide the Judges in that case was the order sheet. The provisions of Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not even noticed. In the present case it appears that the complainant, when being examined, expressly stated that the accused would remove the woman, if they same to know that her presence was required by the Court. This being sworn to, the Magistrate was justified in passing the order for a warrant whish he did. Having regard to the provisions of Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Clause (a), I think that the mere omission in the present case in recording the reasons for the issue of a warrant in the first instance amounted to a mere irregularity, and would not vitiate the proceedings. It is not shown that, from any point of view, the accused has in any way been prejudiced. I would, therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the application. The accused must surrender to his bail to serve out the remainder of his sentence.