P L D 2025 High Court (AJ&K) 31 (PLP)

CH. KHALID RASHEED, J.

The captioned revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Bhimber on 07.05.2024, whereby the complaint filed under section 492B-C/A.P.C. and section 203H, Cr.P.C. has been endorsed for further proceedings and respondents were ordered to deposit personal bond of Rs.50000/- each. The office has reported that the instant revision petition is time barred. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted that how the instant revision petition is within limitation, he simply replied that no span of limitation has been provided under any statute for filing criminal revision petition before the High Court, hence, revision petition can be filed at any time. I have pondered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the provisions of law relevant on the subject. It is apparent that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which envisages procedure to proceed in criminal matters, no period of limitation has been provided for filing a criminal revision petition before this Court. Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, which postulates a procedure to proceed in the cases filed before the High Court is also silent about the stipulation of limitation for preferring a criminal revision petition before this Court. The Limitation Act, 1908 which governs the process of litigation and specified the time after which a suit or other proceeding cannot be presented in a Court of law, is also mute regarding filing of a criminal revision petition before the High Court. When no period of limitation has been provided for preferring a criminal revision petition before the High Court in Code of Criminal Procedure, Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules and Limitation Act, the question arises that what would be the limitation for filing the same whether the same can be filed at any time for an unlimited period or any period of limitation should be fixed. It is pertinent to mark that the barricade of limitation is one of the extremely crucial, critical and decisive essence because default on the part of one party confers ipso facto prerogative to the other party and judicial forum while acting impartially, must keep even a firm scale of justice sine any tilt in favour of one party against another for safe, fair, administration of ideal justice and maintaining the rule of law, hence, it is not only vital and essential but indispensable to fix a period of limitation for filing a criminal revision petition before the High Court. The Prime object, aim and purpose of the law of limitation is to prescribe a certain time within which the rights can be enforced in the Court of law. Imposing time limits prevents stale claims from being revived after a considerable period, so the justice could be served effectively and to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired or what may have been lost by party's own inaction, negligence and laches. Law recognizes the rule of prudence which necessitates that a litigant should be vigilant and cautious to his rights. A person who remains indolent to his rights is usually not entitled to get any equitable relief of the Court. It is a bedrock precept of law that law helps the vigilant and not indolent. Reliance may be placed on 2011 SCR 18, 2021 SCR 343, 2022 YLR 2332 and PLJ 2020 Lahore

204. A person who fails to approach the Court within a reasonable time would be deemed indolent to his rights, hence, such claim deserves to be discarded under the rule of prudence/vigilance, particularly when the impugned order is passed in presence of the party but in spite of this crucial fact a party remains mum for a considerable time sine any reason thus, that silence would tantamount to consider the same as approved and in such like situation the cardinal rule of estoppels and acquiescence will be an obstacle because no one can be allowed to assail the order of criminal court for an unlimited time as such laxness would amount to a flagrant injustice to the other party. It deems appropriate to mention that under Article 120 of the Limitation Act a suit can be filed within a period of six years and after amendment within three years when the right to sue accrues, if no limitation is provided elsewhere in the said Act. The residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 bestows three years period for filing an application for which no period of limitation is provided but said article deals with the matter relating to Code of Civil Procedure, hence, the same cannot be made applicable to the case filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also in my judicial notice that Lahore High Court Lahore in Appeal No.460 of 2018 has held that under Article 155 of the Limitation Act, a criminal revision petition before the High Court can be filed within sixty days and same like observations have been made by High Court Dacca, but I am not convinced with the said observations because Article 155 of Limitation Act deals with second appeals filed before the High Court and not to the Criminal Revision Petitions. Moreso, in Azad Jammu and Kashmir an amendment has been effected in Article 155 of Limitation Act qua 90 days has been provided in the said Article to approach the relevant Court, hence, even on this ground it may be fixed as ninety days for filing criminal revision petition before this Court. Moreover the period of limitation provided in other statutes and for civil revision petitions normally extended to ninety days hence, while fixing a period not provided in the statues it should be fixed in a lenient way in order to provide a reasonable time to an aggrieved party for redressal of the grievance. It is also not out of context to mark that no period of limitation has been provided under any statute for filing a writ petition before the High Court under Article 44 of the of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 but the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in 2022 SCR 1088 has observed that a writ petition against an order has to be filed within a reasonable time and the reasonable time is not later than three months. The relevant observations recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under:-- "

6. Moreover, it is evident from the record that respondent No.2, herein, preferred writ petition before the learned High Court on 26.11.2020 around 9 months after the order dated 19.09.2020. We are not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents about explanation of delay in filing of writ petition before the High Court. He has failed to give any plausible and reasonable explanation in this regard. It is now well settled that constitutional petition has to be filed within a reasonable time. Aggrieved person has to challenge the impugned order not later than three months, which is a reasonable time and if constitutional petition is filed after the expiry of three months the period thereafter has to be adequately and sufficiently been explained by the petitioner. In this case, we are satisfied that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting the matter and writ petition filed after inordinate delay, hence, the same was hit by the principle of 'aches and was not maintainable." The guidance may also be obtained from the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Procedure Rules, 1984 because as stated earlier though no period of limitation has been mentioned in the said rules for a criminal revision petition but under Rule 44(2) a civil revision petition is illuminated to be presented within a span of ninety days from the date of impugned order, thus a criminal revision petition before this Court would be justified to be considered within limitation if filed within a reasonable time of ninety days from the date of the impugned order. In the supra state of affairs it is appropriate to hold that a criminal revision petition can be filed before the High Court within a span of ninety days of impugned order and if a person approaches the Court beyond that period then has to satisfy the Court regarding a sufficient cause for not preferring the revision petition and if succeeded to satisfy the Court, regarding delay, the same can be condoned under Article 5 of the Limitation Act. The period of limitation can also be condoned under Article 13 of limitation Act, if the applicant was out of territory of the State and other exclusion of time provided by the said Act can also be pondered as a sufficient cause for delay. The Govt. is also directed to arrange necessary amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules in order to bridge the said lacuna. In the instant case, the impugned order was announced in presence of the petitioner on 07.05.2024 but he remained indolent to his rights and filed the instant revision petition after 105 days of the impugned order on 20.08.2024 sine assigning even a single word of explanation for such delay, hence, the same is hereby declared as time barred. The crux and epitome of the above discussion is, the captioned revision petition is hereby sacked as being barred by limitation. The office is directed to send copy of this order to Secretary Law Department of AJ&K for compliance as observed in the preceding paragraph. JK/32/HC(AJ&K) Revision disallowed.