2014 P Cr (PLP)
STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Appellant Versus WAHID — Respondent
| Citation | 2014 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Appellant Versus WAHID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 P Cr (PLP) (STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar — Appellant Versus WAHID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar---Appellant
- MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This appeal has been filed by the State through Advocate-General under section 417, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10-12-2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Takht Bhai, Mardan, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C., registered under F.I.R. No.699 dated 18-11-2011.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Cheating; forgery for purpose of cheating; and using as genuine a forged document
Plea raised by authorities that delay had been caused due to lengthy procedure of sanction from concerned quarters
Provision contained in special law prevailed upon provision contained in general law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, having been provided limitation, provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, could not be invoked
Appeal filed after expiry of 30 days was barred by time and there was no justification that leniency should be shown in case of appeal filed by State
Court of law could not adopt a different yardstick for the State, in case of limitation
Appeal was time barred and no justification was shown by the State for condonation of delay
Double presumption of innocence was attached to order of acquittal passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction and in extraordinary cases, where judgment was found to be perverse, shocking or suffering from error of jurisdiction, Appellate Court could interfere
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.
This appeal has been filed by the State through Advocate-General under section 417, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10-12-2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Takht Bhai, Mardan, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C., registered under F.I.R. No.699 dated 18-11-2011.
2. At the very outset, a query was made by the Court from the learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of State/appellant that whether the instant appeal has been filed within time prescribed under law. It was contended by him that the same could not be filed within time because of lengthy procedure of sanction from the concerned quarters and prayed for condonation of delay on this ground.
3. Perusal of record reveals that the impugned judgment was passed on 10-12-2012. As per record annexed, application for procuring attested copies was made on 18-12-2012 and the delivery of the same was made on 5-1-2013. The sanction letter of Home Departments attached with the file depicts the date of sanction as 11-4-2013 whereas the present appeal has been filed on 3-7-2013. From 11-4-2013 up till filing of the appeal, there was no justification for the State to make any delay in filing of the appeal and this Court does not agree with the contention of the learned A.A.-G. that due to process of sanction the appeal was delayed. The right of appeal under section 417 has been provided under Special Law i.e. Cr.P.C. and it is by now well settled that the provision contained in Special Law would prevail upon provision contained in General Law. When Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 had provided limitation then the provision of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be invoked. Appeal filed after expiry of 30 days was clearly barred by time and it is no justification that the leniency should be made in case of appeal filed by the State. The Court of law cannot adopt a different yardstick for the State, in case of Limitation. Appeal is hopelessly time barred and no justification has been shown in the application as well as during the arguments for condonation of delay. Even otherwise on merits, no case is made out for interference of this Court. It is well settled that in appeal against acquittal, double presumption of innocence is attached to the order of acquittal passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction and in extra ordinary cases, where the judgment found to be perverse, shocking or suffering from error of jurisdiction, the Appellate Court can interfere. Under the circumstances, this appeal being without merit is dismissed in limine. MH/548/P Appeal dismissed.