2025 P Cr (PLP)
The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Appellant Versus Najeeb Ullah — Respondent
| Citation | 2025 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Appellant Versus Najeeb Ullah — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act (I of 2015) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act (I of 2015) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 P Cr (PLP) (The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Appellant Versus Najeeb Ullah — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar---Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9(a), 11 & 14
Unlawful hunting
Time barred
Accused was charged that he after unlawful hunting of Kalij pheasant (a protected bird) uploaded his video clips on social media
State, instead of filing an application for grant of special leave to appeal, had filed criminal appeal in High Court against order of acquittal, therefore, the same was not maintainable
Acquittal order had been passed on complaint filed under S.60 of the KPK Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 2015, whereas, under S.417(2) & (3), Cr.P.C, the aggrieved person might present an application of special leave to appeal before the High Court within 60 days and after getting permission, the aggrieved person might proceed with the appeal against the acquittal
It was evident from record that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.07.2024 had been assailed by way of that appeal, filed on 14.01.2025, which was time barred by 125 days
If the Court allowed the appellant to either file an application for grant of special leave to appeal under S.417(2) & (3) Cr.P.C, or the memorandum of appeal, for the sake of administration of dispensation of justice, was treated as an application for grant of special leave to appeal, even then, the same being barred by time, would not be maintainable
Appeal of State against the order of acquittal being incompetent as well as barred by time was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Tariq Afridi, J.
This criminal appeal under section 417 (2) Cr.P.C has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Forest Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner Tehsil and District Battagram whereby the respondent has been acquitted in complaint case/challan No.3.AC (B) dated 19.03.2024 under sections 9(a), 11, 14 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management Act, 2015.
2. Brief facts as alleged in complaint are that Sandeep Kumar, Watcher, in his complaint under section 60 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management Act, 2015, has alleged that the respondent after unlawfully hunting of Kalij Pheasant (a protected bird) uploaded his video clips on social media, and has committed an offence under the Act.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Mr. Muhammad Shoaib, learned A.A.G. argued that the impugned order of acquittal is patently illegal, against the law and erroneous.
5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the State, instead of filing an application for grant of special leave to appeal, has filed this criminal appeal in High Court against the impugned order of acquittal, and therefore, the same is not maintainable.
6. It is imperative to mention that the impugned acquittal order has been passed on complaint filed under section 60 of the Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conversation and Management Act, 2015, whereas, under section 417 (2) and (3) of Cr.P.C the aggrieved person may present an application of special leave to appeal before the High Court within 60 days and after granting permission, the aggrieved person may proceed with the appeal against the acquittal. For the sake of convenience section 417 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
417. Appeal in case of acquittal. (1) Subject to the provision of subsection (4), the Provincial Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court. (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (2-A) A person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, may, within thirty days, file an appeal against such order.'
7. It is evident from record that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.07.2024, has been assailed by way of this appeal, filed on 14.01.2025, which is 125 days time barred. If this Court allows the appellant to either file an application for grant of special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, or this memorandum of appeal, for the sake of administration of dispensation of justice, is treated as an application for grant of special leave to appeal, even then, the same being barred by time, would not be maintainable.
8. In view of the above, this appeal of State against the order of acquittal being incompetent as well as barred by time is dismissed in limine. JK/41/P Appeal dismissed.