S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this court, under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter "the Code" ). He is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM)dated 21-3-2007, rejecting his application for discharge under Section 34-B (2)of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereafter "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE facts necessary to decide the petition are that the petitioner, a uk national, professes to have an unblemished record. He was detained pursuant to a "red Corner Notice" issued by the Interpol, on account of a request by the government of the UAE. He claims to have visited India, with one Peter Simon, chairman of M/s Monsoon Ltd, UK, a well known international fashion brand, in connection with some charity work. Upon his landing at the Indira Gandhi international Airport, he was detained, on the the basis of a "look Out circular" (LOC) issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, issued pursuant to the red corner notice. The detention took place on 7-1-2007.

( 3 ) AFTER his detention, the petitioner caused a legal notice to be issued to the Ministry of External Affairs, of the Government of India, detailing the various circumstances that led to the red corner notice. Apparently he had acted as investment adviser to a financial company, under the direct control of the department of Private Affairs of Abu Dhabi. Certain allegations of fraud were levelled in relation to those dealings; these led to claims being preferred before the courts in UK. The charges of fraud were not pressed; initially, the petitioner was held liable to pay some amounts. He carried the matter in appeal in the U. K. Courts, and his counter claim/appeals were allowed. As a consequence, the financial arm of Abu Dhabi, which had preferred the claim, was adjudged liable. In the meanwhile, the Government of UAE apparently held criminal proceedings in absentia, and secured a judgment declaring him guilty. Consequently, a red corner notice was issued. The petitioner was detained in south Africa, and Canada, and on both occasions, the local authorities, after considering all the facts, released him.

( 4 ) THE petitioner moved an application for bail, which was considered, and rejected by the ACMM, through a detailed order on 10-1-2007. Subsequently, this court, after considering various issues and materials, directed release of the petitioner on interim bail. The court reasoned that by virtue of Article 10 (3)of the Extradition treaty between the Government of UAE and the Indian government, the latter was empowered to release the fugitive criminal (i. e the petitioner) before the expiration of the period under Section 34 (2) of the Act, and that the circumstances of the case justified his release, on conditions spelt out in the order.

( 5 ) AFTER the issuance of the said order, the petitioner moved the learned acmm, for discharge under Section 34 (2 ). That order was rejected by the impugned order. The relevant and material part of the order reads as follows:

"in the present case there had been no request from any foreign state foreign state for the immediate arrest of the fugitive criminal and in fact the fugitive criminal had been arrested admittedly on the basis of red corner notice of the interpol as discussed above hence, the question of the provisions of Section 34b (3) having come into operation does not arise. In this background the question of discharge of the fugitive criminal under section 34b (2) expiration of 60 days if no request of his surrender has been received during this period would only be relevant in those case where the provisional warrant for the arrest of the fugitive criminal are obtained from the Magistrate by the Central government. Hence, I do not find any merit in th request made by the applicant/fugitive criminal. Lastly it is an admitted case that till date no request has been received from the UAE Government. The provisions of Ar