MIRZA IFTIKHAR MEHMOOD versus AREA MAGISTRATE, POLICE STATION NEKAPURA, SIALKOT
Sections 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Petition The fugitive applicant, arrested by the police, was presented to the magistrate and the applicant has since been detained. , The applicant was later told that he had been arrested on a commission offense under Sections 393, 394 and 397 of the Belgium Penal Code, the main idea of the petitioner's counsel was to provide the applicant with the Delivery Act of 1972 Could not have been arrested without following the procedure laid down, if after the inquiry under Section 8, the magistrate was of the opinion that the accused An initial trial did not come up in support of the perpetrator's surrender request, he would release the fugitive offender and submit his report to the federal government. And, if a first case was brought up in support of such a requirement, he would present the result of the inquiry to the Federal Government if the report and statement received under clause (b) of section 10 of the Reference Act 1972 However, the federal government was of the opinion that the fugitive wanted to surrender to the offender, he could issue a warrant to detain and eliminate the fugitive offender and provide him with a warrant and any person named in the warrant. Arrested under such warrant under Section 12 of the Delivery Act, 1972, it cannot be supplied until the expiry of the fifteen days from the date on which such reason was made. The prisoner may be ordered to be released, unless there is a good cause. On the contrary, it was shown that if the absconding offender had not been expelled from Pakistan within two months of the deputy attorney general of such commission, he would have made a clear case.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
