' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2-4-1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,182 of 1995 and the other connected writ petitions whereby the reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer under the Extradition Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were challenged dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that a request was received from the United States of America for extradition of the present petitioner on the ground that he was involved in Heroin smuggling into United States of America. Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Act, and Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan who held enquiry and submitted his first report. The same report, was contested by the petitioner inasmuch as he filed a writ petition without success in the High Court. Then he approached this Court through an appeal with the leave of the Court. The above appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Enquiry Officer to consider the question of prima facie case with a reference to the statements of Cl/1 Tariq Javed and Cl/2 Khalid Saleem. The above judgment is reported in PLD 1994 SC 23 (Nasrullah Khan Henjra v. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad etc.). After the remand, the Enquiry Officer i.e, A.D.C.(G), Islamabad received the above statements of the witnesses and furnished the copies of the same to the petitioner. He also allowed the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal.
After concluding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded through his report dated 17-8-1994 that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for extraditing him to United States. The petitioner filed above writ petition in the High Court assailing the above Enquiry Officer's Report which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.
3.. In support of his petition Khawaja Haris Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the statements of the above two witnesses namely Tariq Javed and Khalid Saleem could not have been made the basis for recording the above finding as the above two persons were themselves involved in drug smuggling inasmuch as both were arrested in U.K. From the common flat and they were convicted and inasmuch as they were awarded R.I. Of 5 years and 7 years respectively. It has been further urged by him that they had furnished the above statements against the petitioner in order to get concession from the United States Government in respect of their one friend/relation who has been sentenced in U.S.A. For drug smuggling. It has also been urged by him that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the evidence brought on record by the petitioner indicating that the above two witnesses owned considerable property.
4. The above contentions may be relevant before the trial Court in order to evaluate the evidentiary value of the above statements. But the same cannot be accepted at this stage. Similarly the question as to whether the above two witnesses or any one of them owned any immovable property may be relevant consideration at the trial but the same cannot be a ground to record a contrary finding. The scope of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer was to find a prima facie case. The impugned judgment seems to be in consonance with law. It does not call for interference. Leave is refused.