P (PLP)

The general rule of practice relating to limitation may not be departed from unless there were most exceptional circumstance governing any particular case. A I R 1942 Patna. 151 1 A I R 1946 104 ref. Sh. Mansoor Ahmad, for Respondent. Public Prosecutor for Crown. SAKER, J.C.‑‑This is An application under sections 433 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police In Baluchistan on behalf of the Crown against the order of the City Magistrate, Quetta dated 6th January 1949, whereby the respondent was discharged in a case in which he had been challanged under sections 459, 380; 461, and 411) Pakistan Penal Code. The prayer before the is to set aside the above order and direct a retrial of the case. In the‑first place, before entering into the merits of the case,' it is necessary to examine the question of limitation. I admitted this case to full hearing on the understanding that arguments on behalf of the respondent' would be permissible on the question of limitation. The general rule of practice in all High Courts is that while section 439, Criminal Procedure Code does not prescribe any period of limitation by law, applications made 60 days after the date of the order, complained of will not normally be entertained. This view has been supported by my learned predecessors and it is, therefore, necessary to examine the circum stances under which this revision application has been lodged more than 13 months after the original order of discharge of the respondent. It has been argued before me that the Senior Superintendent of Police was trot aware of the order of the learned City Magistrate when it was passed, but I am quite unable to accept this argument for the simple reasons that the records of the lower Court indicate that on the date on which the accused‑respondent was discharged, although the police were not represented in Court the proceedings took place the following day. It is, therefore, obviously not within the bounds of possibility that, the Police who were represented in Court on the following dates of hearing were not aware of the fact that the accused‑respondent had been discharged. It is not permissible for a Magistrate to hear a case against two accused persons if the third is absent.. It must therefore, be presumed that the Police at that time were fully aware that since the proceedings were continuing against the other two accused only, the accused‑respondent had been dis charged by 'the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to A I R 1942 Patna, p. 151 in which 'the learned judge ruled that when a revision petition has ,been admitted the question of limitation is not of much importance in a criminal revision. The same principle was followed in A I R 1946 Patna, p,

104. With this view I am disposed to agree, but it is necessary‑for me to point out that I admitted this revision application to full hearing on the understanding that the‑question‑bf limitation would be fully discussed before me. It would, therefore, not be logical for this Court to take a, different view from ‑the‑ general rule of practice relating to limitation unless there were most exceptional circumstances governing any particular case. In this case before me as 3 have made cleat above, there are no exceptional circumstances moreover, I am satisfied that it must have been within the know‑ ledge of the Police authorities that the accused‑respondent had been discharged very shortly after the order of discharge had been passed. I cannot therefore, find any exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant interference by this Court. The application for revision is accordingly rejected. A.H. Application rejected..