1992 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure ode (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 417(2)‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12‑‑‑Special leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Limitation, condonation of‑‑‑No application for condonation of delay was filed‑‑‑Complainant did not invoke jurisdiction of Court under 5.417(2), Cr.P.C, but preferred revision petition before Sessions Judge‑‑ Section 417(2), Cr.P.C. clearly envisaged jurisdiction of Court‑‑‑Period spent before Sessions Court could not he excluded‑‑‑Section 12 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not cure the defect of limitation in view of specific provisions of 5.417(2), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑No cause for condonation of delay was shown‑‑‑Petition was dismissed as barred by time in circumstances. Malik Allah Yar for Petitioner. Malik Amjad Hussain for Respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and

5. The petitioner instituted a private complaint in which the respondents accused were summoned and in the course of the trial of the complaint, the complaint was dismissed and the respondents‑accused were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate with powers under section 30, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition. The*said revision was also dismissed being incompetent and non‑maintainable, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 3‑2‑1985. The petitioner has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 417(2) seeking special leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused. Obviously, this petition is barred by time because the period prescribed for filing such petitions seeking leave to appeal is sixty days. The judgment impugned‑was delivered on 29th of November, 1984 and, therefore, the period of limitation expired by 1st of February, 1985. This petition was filed in this Court on 12th of March, 1985. The petitioner applied to obtain the copy of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18th of February, 1985. The copy was prepared on 24th of February, 1985 and was delivered on the same day. The exclusion of the time for preparation and delivery of the copy is irrelevant in this case because the judgment in revision is not being impugned. The order impugned in this case would be that of a Magistrate who dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondents accused, the time of limitation is to be computed from 29th of November, 1984 and not from the date of the judgment delivered by .the Sessions Judge, Sargodha. As far as the case against the acquittal is concerned, only in exceptional circumstances, the delay can be condoned. No separate application has been filed seeking the condonation of delay and it was urged that section 12 of the Limitation Act would cure the defect of limitation. I am afraid that section 12 of the Limitation Act in this case is not applicable because remedy is specifically provided in section 417(2), Cr.P.C. envisaging petition for special B leave to appeal, against the acquittal of the accused in a complaint case. There can be no vagueness or doubt about the jurisdiction to be exercised and thus it was incompetent petition. The petitioner/complainant ought to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. instead of filing a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge and the said period, therefore, cannot be excluded. Since no sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay, therefore, this petition is dismissed being barred by time. S.A./M‑3057/L Petition dismissed.