92
custody of the police or charged upon the charge sheet.
There was no provision ehich expressly empowered the magistrate
in such an event to proceed to hear and determine the case.
Section 3 of this Ordinance remedies the omission.
5. Section 11 (1) of the principal Ordinance provided
that if a defendant did not appear in answer to a summons the magistrate might issue a warrant for his arrest (1) upon being satisfied by cath that the summons was duly served, and (2)
on cath being made before the magistrate substantiating the
matter of the complaint ca information. It has long been
the practice to issue this warrant upon sworn evidence of the
service of the summons, without requiring the complaint to be
substantiated by cath. The reason for this practice is
probably to be found in the form of warrant which is given in
the First Schedule and which is referred to in the margin of
the section, 1.e., Form No. 2. That form recites sworn evi-
-dence of the service of summons but does not recite that the
matter of the complaint was substantiated by cath.
Section
4 of this Ordinance amends the section in question so as to
make it agree with the practice. Section 6 of the principal
Ordinance provides that "The forms in the First Schedule
shall be deemed good, valid and sufficient in law." It is
a curicus thing that exactly the same discrepancy between the
section and the form occurs in the case of section 2 of the
Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 and Form (B) in the Schedule
to that Act. Section 13 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act,
1848, and section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, re-
-quire only sworn evidence of the summons. Section 9 of
the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, does not even require
sworn evidence of the service of the summons, but Form (D)
in the Schedule tc that Act recites that service has been
proved by cath.
1
6.