MAQSOOD AHMED versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GENERAL/INQUIRY MAGISTRATE)
Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Chapter XXII A [Sections 265A to 265N] and Section 342 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition for Delivery of the Proof of Evidence, Prohibited Against Subjection Delivery order was approved. The plea was taken by the applicant through the inquiry officer stating that the order of extradition against him was passed without proof, that recording of oral evidence through legal proceedings was not required under Section 8 of the Verification Act, 1972, If some material that has the power of proof was already on record. By prosecution, the same can be considered for concluding the fact in relation to the fact of the commission of the crime, and the ultimate possibility can be considered as evidence in this case and in fact for this decision. Can be considered. The issue was to be held in the nature of the investigation being investigated to see if there was a first case or not, and the fugitive was presented to stand trial in the criminal case against the offender, who was under trial in a foreign country court. The documents related to these documents by the prosecution were in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Delivery Act, 1972, and were admissible material by which they could be considered. The Government was not obliged to inquire into such matters pursuant to the trial mode of the Sessions Cases under Section 8 of the Delivery Act, 1972, by order of the Delivery Order, to inquire into the Inquiry Officer in accordance with such inquiry officer. Was given the option of. Follow the appropriate procedure by providing copies of the extradition request to the fugitive offender and his / her
