ORDER FAKHAR UN NISA KHOKHAR, J.- The sole grievance of the petitioner is that Nausher Adil detenu is his brother-in-law who was arrested by the local police of P.S. Shadman, Lahore in case FIR No. 63, dated 29.5.1994 under section 392 PPC. Under suspicion. He was produced before the llaqa Magistrate with the prayer of an identification parade. Accordingly the detenu was sent to Judicial lock up with the respondent No. 1 on 13.11.1995, to arrange the identification parade, and was further ordered to be produced before the Court on 27.11.1995. On 14.11.1995 the police gave an application to the llaqa Magistrate for conducting an identification parade and for appointment of some Magistrate to supervise the same. The A.C. Entrusted the same to the llaqa Magistrate for disposal. The llaqa Magistrate showed his nonavailability to conduct the same as he was on duty at the Fortrest Stadium, Lahore in Horse and Cattle Show. Afterwards it was entrusted to Mr. Tahir Sindhu, learned Magistrate to supervise the ^identification parade, who adjourned the same for 26.11.1995 as he was on duty and also directed the witnesses present in the Court to appear for identification parade at Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore on the said date.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identification parade was not held within the stipulated period of 14 days and they have failed to hold the same which otherwise means that they are not possessed with any evidence for detention of the alleged detenu and that respondent No. I i.e. The Superinten Central Jail Kot Lakhpat, Lahore was bound by the order of the llaqa Magistral produce the detenue on 27.11.1995 but .The detenue was not produced before Court as the detenue is not named in the F.I.R, nor any identification marks mentioned in the FIR about the detenu: his detention in the judicial lock-up unlawful. Moreover the learned Magistrate who was directed to supervise tl identification parade could not supersede the order of the llaqa Magistrate to produce the detenue on 27.11.1995.
3. Learned State counsel appearing on the other side submits that since the learned Magistrate ML Tahir Sindhu had to supervise the identification parade was also the Duty Magistrate, therefore, he has rightly extended the judicial remand upto 7.12.1995 for the reasons that 26.11.1995 was general leave and the identification parade could not be conducted on a leave day in the prison since all the prisoners were in the lock up which are not opened on leave day. He also passed order on 26.11.1995 that identification parade should be conducted on 3.12.1995 and the witnesses were also directed to appear on this date. The learned State counsel also submits that as the Magistrate has to supervise the identification parade therefore: normally the accused for whom the identification parade is conducted are not produced before the witnesses, therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged detenue was not produced before the Magistrate on 26.1 1.1995 a day earlier when the1 remand order was to expire is not correct. The Magistrate was also the Duty Magistrate .And since the llaqa Magistrate was busy and was on duty therefore, the remand order. Was extended by Magistrate Tahir Sindhu as Duty Magistrate.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the orders passed by the authorities in respect of the alleged detenu. The detenu is taken into custody through proper orders passed by the learned A.C. And as the identification parade could not "be held on 26.11.1995 being a general holiday, the learned Magistrate as Duty Magistrate extended the judicial remand of the alleged detenu. Therefore, I see no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate/Duty Magistrate and do not find the custody of the petitioner to be unlawful and improper.
5. Therefore, finding no substance in the present petition the same is dismissed.