1. RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---On 30-12-2003, the appellant has filed the appeal from Jail, under section 417, Cr.P.C. To challenge the judgment of acquittal passed on 14-7-1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, in Sessions Case No.173 of 1993, by which the learned Judge had acquitted private respondents.
2. ' Apparently, the appeal is time-barred as under section 417, 2-A, Cr.P.C., the appeal is to the filed within a period of 30 days.
3. ' The appeal was filed by the appellant from jail, therefore, this Court appointed Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate," to assist the Court because the appellant was un-represented. In pursuance of said order Mr. Habibullah Ghouri Advocate has submitted his arguments. We have also heard the appellant in person, Additional Advocate-General for State and Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, Advocate who was also asked to assist the Court. All the advocates and Additional Advocate-General have addressed that this Court is not competent to condone the delay of more than 4 years in filing the appeal as section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal filed by private person under section 417, (2-A), Cr.P.C.
4. ' We have also gone through the material available on the record. As already observed that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Now the question arises whether or not section 5 of Limitation Act will be applicable in the case. The provisions of section 417, (2-A), Cr.P.C.. Are couched in such a manner where the specific period of 30 days has been provided for filing such appeal. Normal period for filing the appeal before the High Court is six months by virtue of Article 157 of Limitation Act.
5. The time prescribed under section 417, (2-A), Cr.P.C. Is different from the time prescribed under Article 157 of the Limitation Act. In such a situation the Article 29 of Limitation Act will become operative under which the Article 5 of Limitation Act has been excluded from application, unless the statute specifically provides for such application. Under section 417, Cr.P.C., Article 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable as such the said section would not be applicable for condoning the delay. Similar question was examined by this Court in the case of Abdul Kadir v.
6. Atique Ahmed, PLD 2004 Kar.
555. In the authority the various provisions of other laws including section 417, Cr.P.C. Anti-Terrorism Act, Rent Restriction Ordinance and Land Revenue Act were considered and finally it was observed that section 417, Cr.P.C. Is a special provision within the meaning of section 29 of Limitation Act and in such circumstances section 5 of Limitation Act will not be applicable.
7. After considering the material available on record we are of considered view that this Court is not competent to condone the delay in present circumstances of the case. As such appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
8. ' The appellant has stated that he is in custody, as such a copy of order may be supplied to him.
9. Office is directed to send the certified true copy of the order to the appellant through Superintendent of Jail.