Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The petitioner was a resident of Tiruvattiyur and a complaint of criminal breach of trust was received against him. He was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Tiruvattiyur at Bangalore (Civil and Military Station) without a warrant on 27th December, 1939, and produced before the First Class Magistrate there on 28th December. The Magistrate remanded him to the custody of the Sub-Inspector for production before the Sub-Magistrate of Saidapet on 30th December, and he was produced before the Sub-Magistrate of Saidapet on 30th December. The Sub-Magistrate remanded him for ten days to enable the police to complete the investigation, and an application for bail was moved the next day. The petitioner was released on bail on 31st December, and he returned to Bangalore. The chargesheet was filed on 5th March, 1940, and a summons was issued for the appearance of the petitioner on 20th March. The petitioner appeared on 20th March and the case was adjourned to 30th March for inquiry as it stood posted to 20th March only for apprehension of the petitioner. The case was then adjourned to 3rd April and objection was taken on that day to the competency of the Sub-Magistrate to try the case on the ground that the arrest of the petitioner at Bangalore oil 27th December was illegal. The objection was overruled and hence this petition.
2. The arrest of the petitioner on 27th December was undoubtedly illegal, but the petitioner was released on bail on 31st December and he returned to Bangalore thereafter. The charge-sheet was filed on 5th March and a summons was issued for the appearance of the petitioner on 20th March without reference to the prior proceedings. The petitioner appeared of his own accord on that day and the propriety of his arrest on 27th December has no bearing on the present proceedings. Even otherwise it cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Sub-Magistrate to inquire into the offence under Section 406 of the Indian. Penal Code committed by the petitioner within his jurisdiction - vide Emperor v. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar I.L.R.(1910)Bom. 225 and the objection was rightly overruled.
3. The petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.