AND THE LORD SAID UNTO— 29
The case of Bappoo Gunness [1 Knapp 6] came before the Supreme Court on an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, to the head gaoler of the gaol at Tannah, directing him to produce the body of Bappoo Gunness, then a prisoner in his custody. The writ was granted on the affidavit of one Babool Ranjee, stating that he had applied to the gaoler for a copy of the warrant under which Bappoo Gunness was confined, and that it had been refused to him. The writ issued on the 10th, and was made returnable on the 19th of September 1828. A return to it was made by the nazir of the court of Adawlut of the northern Konkan, and the gaoler to whom the writ was directed in these terms:– “That before the coming in of the writ, Bappoo Gunness was taken and detained in our custody by virtue of a certain order in writing of the Adawlut Court of the zillah of the northern Konkan, in the Mahratta language, and in the following form:” which was set out, and stated in effect that Bappoo Gunness having been found guilty of embezzlement, was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and a fine of 350 rupees, or in default of payment of that sum to a year’s additional imprisonment. The body of the prisoner not having been produced on the
19th, the Judges would not suffer the return to be read, and directed an attachment to issue against the gaoler. On the
26th the attachment was set aside on payment of the costs, at the instance of the Advocate-General, and Bappoo Gunness having been brought into Court, the return was read, and held insufficient, because the authority of the Adawlut Court was not stated in it; four days time was allowed to amend it, the prisoner being in the mean while committed to the gaol at Bombay. The return was not amended within that time, the Advocate-General stating to the Court that the reason why it had not been amended, was because Government would not suffer the authority of the Provincial Courts to be questioned; and Bappoo Gunness was discharged from custody.
Denman, (Common Serjeant,) and Alderson, for the Petitioner,–It is perfectly clear that the Supreme Court of Judicature possesses the power of issuing a writ of habeas corpus directed to all the King’s subjects, of whatever description, resident within the territories of Bombay, in order to set free the body of any of the King’s subjects detained by them.