Abdul Rauf vs The State And Other
This criminal appeal was filed from jail under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge a judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to an appeal against acquittal filed by a private person under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby empowering the court to condone a delay beyond the prescribed thirty-day period. The court dismissed the appeal as hopelessly time-barred, holding that Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a special provision within the meaning of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908, which excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 unless the statute specifically provides otherwise. The key principle laid down is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is not applicable for condoning delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is applicable to an appeal against acquittal filed under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court condone the delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 beyond the prescribed period of thirty days?
- Is Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a special provision within the meaning of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 417(2A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 157, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 29, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.- On 30.12.2003, the appellant has filed the appeal from Jail, under Section 417, Cr.P.C, to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed on 14.7.1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, in Sessions Case No. 173/1993, by which the learned Judge had acquitted private respondents.
2. Apparently, the appeal is time-barred as under Section 417 2(A), Cr.P.C., the appeal is to be filed within a period of 30 days.
3. The appeal was filed by the appellant from jail, therefore, this Court appointed Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate, the assist the Court because the appellant was un-represented, ln pursuance of said order Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate, has submitted his arguments. We have also heard the appellant in person, Addl. A.G., for State and Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, Advocate who was also asked to assist the Court. All the Advocates and Addl. A.G. Have addressed that this Court is not .Competent to condone the delay of more than 4 years in filing the appeal as Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal filed by private person under Section 417(2A), Cr.P.C.
4. We have also gone through the material available on the record. As already observed that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Now the question arises whether or not Section 5 of Limitation Act will be applicable in the case, the provisions of Section 417(2A), Cr.P.C, are couched in such a manner where the specific period of 30 days has been provided for filing such appeal. Normal period for filing the appeal before the High Court is six months by virtue of Article 157 of Limitation Act.
5. The time prescribed under Section 417(2A), Cr.P.C, is different from the time prescribed under Article 157 of the Limitation Act. Ln such a situation the Article 29 of Limitation Act will become operative under which the Article 5 of Limitation Act has been excluded from application, unless the statute specifically provides for such application. Under Section 417, Cr.P.C., Article 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable as such the said section would not be applicable for condoning the delay. Similar question was examined by this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir Vs. Atique Ahmed (PLD 2004 555). Ln the authority the various provisions of other laws including Section 417, Cr.P.C., Anti- Terrorism Act, Rent Restriction Ordinance and Land Revenue Act were considered and finally it was observed that Section 417, Cr.P.C, is a special provision within the meaning of Section 29 of Limitation Act and in such circumstances Section 5 of Limitation Act will not be applicable.
6. After considering the material available on record we are of considered view that this Court is not competent to condone the delay in present circumstances of the case. As such appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
7. The appellant has stated that he is in custody, as such a copy of order may be supplied to him.
Office is directed to send the certified true copy of the order to the appellant through Superintendent of Jail.