IRFAN ASHIQ vs GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that had accepted the Government's appeal against the petitioner's acquittal. The petitioner was originally charged under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Government's appeal against the acquittal was barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that even after excluding the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the trial court's judgment, the appeal was filed one day beyond the prescribed sixty-day limitation period. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the timeline—noting the acquittal date of 10-8-1981, the application for a certified copy, and the subsequent filing date of 26-11-1981—found that the petitioner's contention regarding the limitation period raised a substantial issue requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider the question of limitation. The holding establishes that where a prima facie case is made out that an appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, leave to appeal should be granted to adjudicate the issue.
- Does the calculation of the limitation period for filing an appeal against an acquittal include the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment?
- Is an appeal filed one day beyond the statutory sixty-day limitation period considered time-barred?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal regarding a question of limitation?
- Section 3(3), Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952
- Section 5(1)(A), Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952
- Section 5(1)(13), Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 26-3-1986 accepting the appeal filed by the Government against the acquittal of the petitioner of the charge under section 3(3) read with sections 5(1)(A) and 5(1)(13) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the Government was barred by time and that the High Court has erred in holding that it was within time.
3. He submitted that the Magistrate passed the order of his acquittal on 10-8-1981. The Government filed an application for supply of certified copy of the judgment on the same day. Copy was prepared on 20-9-1981 and the same was obtained by the respondent-Government on 26-9-1981 and filed the appeal on the same day i.e. 26-11-1981. As such, it would appear that even after deducting the time consumed in obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment the appeal is barred by one day (time for filing appeal being 60 days).
4. 3.We, therefore, think this is a fit case for grant of leave to consider the question of limitation.
5. Ordered accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.