The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar Versus Najeeb Ullah
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the State against an acquittal order passed by a Forest Magistrate in a case involving alleged violations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management) Act, 2015. The core legal question was whether the State's direct filing of a criminal appeal against an acquittal in a complaint-based case was maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the State failed to follow the mandatory procedure of seeking special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court determined that even if the appeal were treated as an application for special leave, it was time-barred, having been filed 125 days after the impugned order. The key principle laid down is that procedural requirements for challenging acquittals in complaint cases, specifically the necessity of obtaining special leave to appeal and adhering to strict limitation periods, are mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisites for the maintainability of such appeals.
- Is a direct criminal appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case maintainable without first obtaining special leave to appeal?
- Does the failure to file an application for special leave to appeal within the prescribed limitation period render an appeal against acquittal incompetent?
- Can a memorandum of appeal be treated as an application for special leave to appeal if the original filing is procedurally defective?
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(a), The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management) Act 2015
- Section 11, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management) Act 2015
- Section 14, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management) Act 2015
- Section 60, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management) Act 2015
Muhammad Tariq Afridi, J .--- This criminal appeal under section 417 (2) Cr.P.C has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Forest Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner Tehsil and District Battagram whereby the respondent has been acquitted in complaint case/challan No.3.AC (B) dated 19.03.2024 under sections 9(a), 11, 14 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management Act, 2015.
2. Brief facts as alleged in complaint are that Sandeep Kumar, Watcher, in his complaint under section 60 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management Act, 2015, has alleged that the respondent after unlawfully hunting of Kalij Pheasant (a protected bird) uploaded his video clips on social media, and has committed an offence under the Act.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Mr. Muhammad Shoaib, learned A.A.G. argued that the impugned order of acquittal is patently illegal, against the law and erroneous.
5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the State, instead of filing an application for grant of special leave to appeal, has filed this criminal appeal in High Court against the impugned order of acquittal, and therefore, the same is not maintainable.
6. It is imperative to mention that the impugned acquittal order has been passed on complaint filed under section 60 of the Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management Act, 2015, whereas, under section 417 (2) and (3) of Cr.P.C the aggrieved person may present an application of special leave to appeal before the High Court within 60 days and after granting permission, the aggrieved person may proceed with the appeal against the acquittal. For the sake of convenience section 417 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
417. Appeal in case of acquittal. (1) Subject to the provision of subsection (4), the Provincial Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(2-A) A person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, may, within thirty days, file an appeal against such order.'
7. It is evident from record that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.07.2024, has been assailed by way of this appeal, filed on 14.01.2025, which is 125 days time barred. If this Court allows the appellant to either file an application for grant of special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, or this memorandum of appeal, for the sake of administration of dispensation of justice, is treated as an application for grant of special leave to appeal, even then, the same being barred by time, would not be maintainable.
8. In view of the above, this appeal of State against the order of acquittal being incompetent as well as barred by time is dismissed in limine.
JK/41/P Appeal dismissed.