1996 PLP 1488 (MLD)

(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

S.5

Prevention of Corruption Act (il of 1947), S.5(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161

Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), S.417(2A)

Appeal against acquittal

Time-barred

Condonation of delay

Explanation furnished by the complainant for the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal against acquittal of accused by the Trial Court was vague and was not substantiated by him

Appeal being barred by time was dismissed in limine as such. Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Appellant. Haji Muhammad Yousaf appellant filed this appeal under section 417(2)-A, Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 13-12-1995 passed by Mr. Sarfaraz Arshad Khan, Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Dera Ghazi Division, Camp at Multan, whereby he acquitted Muhammad Arshad respondent in case F.I.R. No.2, dated 11-1-1995 under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2)-47, P.C.A. registered at P.S. A.C.E., Lodhran. Section 417(2A), Cr.P.C. has conferred right of appeal to an aggrieved person to be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of the judgment. In this case the judgment was announced on 13-12-1995 and appellant applied for the copy of judgment on 9-1-1996 and on the same day the copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellant. He filed the appeal on 11-2-1996 and in this way the appeal is barred by time. The delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is of much importance.

2. Every accused person is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The acquittal of an accused in a criminal case strengthens the presumption of his innocence. The impugned order of acquittal is set aside only if it is against the law and facts, without reasons, fanciful or arbitrary. The Courts are supposed to entertain the appeal, which is filed within the period prescribed by law. The appeal against acquittal cannot be dealt with leniency. The law favours vigilants and not the indolents.

3. The applicant explained the delay in filing the appeal by submitting that the applicant left for Karachi and fell ill there, hence could not file the appeal within 30 days, as provided under section 417(2A), Cr.P.C. The appellant has not annexed proof of his sickness nor any medical certificate is produced. He has produced no document, which would strengthen the presumption that he in fact proceeded to Karachi, even, in the application moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is nowhere stated that on what date the appellant left Multan for Karachi and on what date he returned to Multan. Each and everyday of delay is to be explained by the appellant. The explanation furnished by the appellant is vague which cannot be accepted. The appeal being time-barred and for what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed in limine. C. M. No. l of 1996 An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved. It is no where stated that on what date the applicant left Multan for Karachi and on what date he returned to Multan. Each and every day of delay is to be explained by the applicant. The explanation furnished by the applicant is vague which cannot be accepted. For what has been stated above, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-7/L Appeal dismissed.