ATHAR NAEEM alias WAQAS CHAUDHRY vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The appeal was filed with a delay of 105 days. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, despite the specific limitation period prescribed by the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable to appeals filed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, because the latter statute prescribes a specific limitation period different from that in the Limitation Act, 1908, and does not incorporate Section 5. Consequently, the Court established the principle that where a special statute provides a specific period of limitation for filing an appeal that differs from the general law, and does not expressly make the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 applicable, the Court lacks the authority to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
- Can the delay in filing an appeal under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Does Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 to special statutes providing different limitation periods?
- What is the limitation period for filing an appeal against a judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Section 25, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 29, Limitation Act 1908
1. RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---On 28-8-2006 the appellant filed appeal through Superintendent Prison to challenge his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court No.1, Karachi, vide judgment dated 5-5-2006.
2. The Office has raised objection that the appeal is time barred by 105 days. On the said objection we have heard appellant in person and A.A.-G. For the State. We have also called report from the Superintendent Jail to inquire whether or not the Prison Rule 90 pertaining to informing the appellant to file the appeal was compiled with to which he has sent a letter dated 12-2-2007 stating that the rule was complied with, as the appellant was informed that he could file appeal if he intended to do so but the appellant replied that his relatives would file the appeal. Apparently the appeal is time barred by 105 days as the appeal is required to lie filed within a period of 7 days from the date of judgment as per section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
3. The appellant has also filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay. Section 5 of Limitation Act, would be applicable subject to provision 29 of the said Act, which provides that if a time is provided under any statute for filing appeal etc, which is different from the time mentioned in the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, then the section 5 would not be applicable unless it is made applicable by the statute under which the appeal is filed. In the present case, there is no provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act, which can authorize the Court to invoke the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The time provided under the Anti-Terrorism Act for filing the appeal is different from the time provided in the Schedule attached to the Limitation. Act for filing such appeal. Thus, section 5 would not be applicable; hence the delay cannot be condoned by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. Consequently, the appeal is time barred, which stands, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Messrs PEHLWAN MARBLE FACTORY through Muhammad Asif vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 200