1. With all respect I find myself unable to agree with the opinion of Wallace, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1932 on the file of the High Court that a Magistrate purporting to act under Section 19 of the Fugitive Offenders Act can make an order of discharge on any other grounds than those indicated in the section. It appears clear to me that Magistrates to whom prisoners are brought under Section 14 are not entitled to decide whether the issue of the warrant for the apprehension of the prisoner was or was not justifiable on the evidence. They can only act under Section 19 if the case appears to be trivial or if the Magistrate considers the application not made bona fide, not made in the interests of public justice or for some other reason of that kind.
2. In the present case it is not contended that the case is trivial. It is contended that the application is not made bona fide but to spite the Appellant. I cannot say that that has been satisfactorily established.
3. This appeal has been argued almost wholly on the merits. I am not prepared to say that there is a strong prima facie case against the Appellant but, on the other hand, cannot say there is no case at all to justify the issue of process for his attendance. There is some indication of the existence of evidence to prove that he collected from the tenant of No. 310, North Bridge Road, about Rs. 70 (Rupees Seventy) per month more than he accounted for to his principal. Whether the tenant gave the money to the Appellant for himself or for his principal is nowhere clearly alleged. If it was a douceur to the Appellant, there can be no question of criminal misappropriation. If it was meant for the principal then there is a case of criminal breach of trust.
4. As already remarked, I cannot say there is no case for the surrender of the Appellant. I dismiss this appeal.