' I do not think this writ petition is filed bona fide and the sole purpose of it appears to achieve indirectly what law does not allow to be achieved directly.
2. The brief background of this case is that the petitioner was proceeded against for criminal complicity in smuggling of heroin to U.S.A. And in pursuance thereto a request was received by the Government of Pakistan for his extradition to that State. The Federal Government moved in the matter under Extradition Act, 1972 and ultimately the case was entrusted to a learned Magistrate 1st Class of Lahore who started taking proceedings as contemplated by Extradition Act, 1972. The known address of the petitioner was given as Cavalry Ground, Lahore, and ultimately for the execution of the warrants that the learned Magistrate issued the properties of the petitioner located in District Jhang were attached.
3. On this writ petition being filed, I sent for the record and called upon the learned Advocate- General, Punjab to appear. A learned Magistrate Mian Muhammad Aslam has appeared with record. He submits that he tried his level best to secure the presence of the petitioner to face the proceedings but it was throughout evaded. In these circumtances, according to him, he had taken the proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1972 read with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction because the petitioner was not resident of Cavalry Ground, Lahore and it was at one time when he was convicted for an offence that this Cavalry Ground address was mentioned but it was his temporary address. This conviction, according to him, was by a Summary Military Court. Learned counsel on the basis of this submission wants to raise the argument that the learned Magistrate at Lahore had no territorial jurisdiction to attach his properties located in Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang; that under section 8 of the Extradition Act, 1972 he had to act as a Court of Session and to record evidence of both the parties which has not been done in the present case. On the other hand, the petitioner was never served and as such was condemned unheard; that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Magistrate will not be able to give him necessary relief because he cannot modify any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. I am sorry to say that none of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel have impressed me. The question of territorial jurisdiction is not pertinently arising in this case. The other arguments also do not require to be resolved by me. The stage at which the petitioner has approached this Court is fully covered by section 89 of the Cr.P.C. Under which a remedy has been provided under the very Code in pursuance of which the learned Magistrate has exercised power, to show cause and to satisfy the learned Magistrate that he was either not served or there was no justification for attachment order. The period stipulated by the aforesaid provision is two years within which a fugitive at law or a person who has allegedly defied the warrants can appear and show cause and ask for the return/release of his property. Learned counsel himself is putting words into the mouth of the learned Magistrate which he is not owning. The learned Magistrate has in clear terms stated that should the petitioner surrender himself to law and approach him he will consider his case in accordance with law. It will be open in those proceedings for the petitioner to raise the question of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate including the conditions and qualifications for its exercise.
6. I do not think any relief can be granted to the petitioner at the present juncture. It is not for this Court to go into factual question whether the petitioner was temporarily residing at Lahore when he was convicted by a Military Court in 1984 or he is a person having multiple residences in Pakistan. This requires holding of an elaborate inquiry and recording of evidence. This can be done by the learned Magistrate and decided even while dealing with the question of his own jurisdiction.
This Court does not ordinarily undertake resolution of disputed questions of fact or embark upon inquiries or start recording evidence especially in a case where an adequate statutory remedy is available to a person approaching this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. I am also desisting from giving a verdict on the points raised before me for the simple reason that it may prejudice the case of either party before the learned Magistrate. My decision on the questions raised prematurely at this stage would be peremptory and it may well be instrumental in denial of a fair opportunity before the Magistrate. I do not want by adopting a contrary course to reduce the statutory remedy to an idle ceremony. The very questions which the learned counsel has raised and wants this Court to resolve are to fall for determination by the learned Magistrate when the petitioner appears voluntarily or is apprehended and brought before the Court in pursuance of the warrants and shows cause and seeks relief as stipulated by section 89 of the Cr.P.C.
7. It must, however, be observed for the benefit of the learned counsel for the petitioner that should the proceedings taken by the Magistrate be tainted with illegality or a case of absence or excess or abuse or failure to exercise jurisdiction is made out it may be open for the petitioner to seek his remedies at law as he may stand advised including approaching this Court for appropriate relief.
' In view of the above discussion, I do not think this writ petition has any merit. It fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.