( 1 ) THIS petition seeks the review of the judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2007 by which this Court had upheld the findings recorded by the extradition Magistrate under Section 7 (4) of the Extradition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") as being prima facie in nature.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the review petitioner had filed a Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 3765/2007 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted the filing of the review petition against the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 6th july 2007. Therefore, it would be appropriate to extract the order dated 20th july 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

"upon hearing counsel the Court made the following order learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. "

Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not appear to have given any permission to the petitioner to file a review petition in this Court against the judgment of this Court dated 6th July 2007. In this view of the matter, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, even on merits of the pleas raised in the review petition, we find that the only grievance in the writ petition which was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court on 6th July 2007 was that the findings in the Enquiry Report passed by the Extradition Magistrate under section 7 (4) of the Act are conclusive findings and would prejudice him severely in proceedings in the Courts in U. K. as these conclusive findings could not have been recorded in an Extradition Report under Section 7 (4)of the Act and are contrary to the position of the law laid down by a Division bench of this Court in Smt. Nina Pillai and others v. Union of India and others, 1997 CRL. L. J. 2358. However, this Court while allaying the apprehension of the petitioner had made it clear while disposing of the writ petition that the findings of the Extradition Magistrate in the Enquiry report are merely prime facie in nature and not akin to the findings in a trial. It was also held that the Enquiry Report is not required to decide any issue about the innocence and guilt of the fugitive criminal and the only purpose of the enquiry is to determine whether a prima facie case or reasonable grounds exist which warrant the fugitive criminal being extradited to the demanding State. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 6th July 2007 of this Court reads as follows:

"4. The principal and indeed the only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Charanjit Singh Bakshi is that the findings recorded by the Extradition Magistrate under Section 7 (4) of the Act far from being prima facie findings, in fact conclusively indict the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and thus run counter to the position of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Nina Pillai and others v. Union of India and others, 1997 CRL. L. J. 2358 and in particular the position of law formulated in paragraph 11 thereof which reads as follows:-

"we may notice here that upon receiving information with sufficient particulars from a requesting State that a fugitive criminal is wanted for any alleged offence committed in the requesting State or for undergoing trial or sentence, the Central government passes an order under Section 5 of the Act, appointing a Magistrate to inquire into the case. The Criminal procedure Code also provides for the arrest of a person without warrant who is concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exis