1980 PLP 332 (SCMR)

Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 27th October, 1979. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition moved from the com plainant's side calls in question the judgment dated 6th February, 1979 of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the convictions and sentences of some of the respondents were altered. The learned trial Court had convicted Ghulam Rasul respondent under section 302,P. P. C. He was awarded death sentence. He was also convicted under sections 325, 323, 452, P. P. C. read with 149, P. P. C. and under section 148, P. P. C. with the award of various sentences. All other respondents were convicted under sections 326, 325, 323, 452, P. P. C. read with 149, P. P. C. and were awarded different sentences, the highest being rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under section 326/149, P. P. C. Sen tences of fine were also imposed, with direction for payment, of compensa tion under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. A learned Division Bench of the High Court set aside the conviction of Ghulam Rasul under section 302, P. P. C. altering the same to 326/149, P. P. C. and reducing the sentence in this behalf to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,

000. Excepting Shah Zaman and Abdul Latif respondents, the convictions and sentences of all the respondents under sections 452 and 323, P. P. C. read with section 149, P. P. C. were set aside. All other convictions and sentences and directions under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. were upheld. The petitioner has sought the conviction of all the respondents under section 302/149, P. P. C. and has prayed for enhancement of the sentences to death and imprisonment for life, against all the respondents. This petition is barred by 33 days. The explanation for delay men tioned in the condonation application is that the petitioner's counsel in the High Court gave him wrong advice in this behalf. The affidavit of the person giving such advice has not been filed with the petition. The petitioner has sought the setting aside of acquittal/s and enhancement of sentence(s). In the circumstances of the case we do not want to depart from the practice that in such 4ike cases, on the ground as stated, the delay is not condoned by this Court. Abdul Qayyum v. Ghulam Yasin (P L D 1963 S C 151), Mst. Rabia Bibi v. Rasool Bakhsh and 2 others (P L D 1966 S C 531). This petition accordingly is dismissed as time‑barred. Petition dismissed.