P L D 1994 Federal Shariat Court 32 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.

This revision petition is directed against judgment, dated the 6th October, 1992, passed by Malik Ata Rasool Joya, Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he acquitted Ejaz Hussain Shah and Shaukat Mahmood respondents, of charge under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 377 read with section 511 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

2. The present, petition was fled before this Court on 9th December, 1993, i.e., after about more than a year of passing of the impugned judgment, although according to rule 18 read with rule 22(A) of the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, it should have been presented within 60 days of the pronouncement of the said judgment. No application has been made for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition with a long delay.

3. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner tried to have an appeal filed by the State but without success. The State declined to do so on 21st August, 1993. Thereafter, he made a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, but it was ordered by the High Court .on 1st December, 1993 that the said petition was not competent before it. Then the revision petition was filed before this Court.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was due to honest mistake on the part of the petitioner that he took up-the matter with the Government and the High Court before coming to this Court and, therefore, delay in filing the revision petition may be overlooked. On the other hand, it was vehemently urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was highly negligent in pursuing the matter and, therefore, there was no reason to condone delay in presenting the revision petition before this Court.

5. Delay in filing a proceeding is excused by the Court if the matter is pursued with another Court in good faith and with due diligence. Any act which is not done with due care and caution cannot be treated as having been done in good faith. Similar is the position of due diligence. The petitioner was assisted by a counsel of very long standing and he should have known the proper forum for filing the revision petition. If he did not exercise proper care in this regard it cannot be said that he acted in good faith. The rules referred to above are clear on the point of limitation and they should have been within the knowledge of the learned counsel. Even otherwise ignorance of law is no excuse. Further, there is no application for condonation of delay. If an application had been made mentioning reasons for the late filing of the revision petition, ire could have examined the soundness or otherwise of those reasons but as already stated, there is no application in this behalf. A valuable right has accrued to the respondents due to in-action on the part of the petitioner and it is not just and fair to take away that right from the respondents without sufficient cause.

6. In view of what has gone above, we feel that there is no cogent reason for condoning delay in filing of this revision petition after more than a year. We, therefore, declined to overlook this delay and dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof. N.H.Q./878/F.S.C?????? Petition dismissed.