1. ' This order will be read in continuation of my order dated 1-9-77 in which three questions of law were raised as to the competency of this appeal as under:
(1) Whether this appeal is competent not having been filed by the Federal Government.
(2) Whether in view of section 185-G(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 as amended, the Advocate- General has the authority to present this acquittal appeal.
(3) Whether this appeal is barred by limitation.
2. ' This matter has remained pending ever since and has been adjourned at the instance of the Advocate-General or his representatives. Today Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. Advocate- General has appeared and concedes that the Provincial Government is not competent to file the present acquittal appeal in view of provisions of section 185 F(1) of the Customs Act which, inter alia, authorises the Federal Government to file an appeal against the decision of a Special Judge under the Act. Learned Additional Advocate-General states that no authority has been obtained from the Federal Government for filing of the present appeal. He has referred to State v.
3. Muhammad Hussain (1) which was a case of a Central Government employee who was acquitted of an offence under section 5(2) of the Provention of Corruption Act. Leave to Appeal was granted to the State on a petition presented by the Advocate-General of West Pakistan Government.
4. However, at the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was raised as to the Competency of appeal filed by the Advocate-General against the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court.
5. On an examination of section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 it was observed as under : "The provisions contained in the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act relating to sanctions for the prosecution of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Centre, the appointment of Special Judges by the Centre for the trial of such persons, the power reserved to the Centre to withdraw prosecution launched against such persons and finally the power reserved to the Centre to move an appeal against the acquittal of such a person by a Special Judge (Central) combined to create a clear impression that control of prosecution and of proceedings in Court on behalf of the State against such persons are matters wholly and exclusively within the power of the Central Government. The general powers of the Provincial Government under the Criminal Procedure Code in this respect are by expression excluded."
6. ' On the aforesaid reasoning their Lordships held that the Provincial Government had no right of seeking leave to appeal against acquittal of a person serving to connection with the affairs of the Centre who has been convicted by a
(1) PLD 1968 SC 265 Special Judge (Central) on a prosecution launched after proper sanction by the Central Government and that the latter Government alone must be reserved such right. On a parity of reasoning the same must be the conclusion so far as acquittals under the Customs Act are concerned. Under section 185-F it is the Federal Government which has been given the right to appeal against any order passed or decision mad by the Special Judge and under section 185- 0(2) a Law Office appointed under the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970 shall be the competent person to conduct proceedings before a Special Appellate Court on behalf of the Federal Government and to withdraw such proceeding when so required by the Federal Government.
7. Special Judges having exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Customs Act are also appointed by the Federal Government under section 185(1). Section 185-C provide of the Code of Criminal Procedure so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Customs Act shall apply to the proceedings. Clearly, therefore, the Provincial Government has not been reserved the right to file in acquittal appeal as it possesses under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. ' Additionally an appeal to the Special Appellate Court can be filed within 30 days from the date of the order or decision appealed against. The learned Additional Advocate-General frankly conceded that the present appeal having been presented beyond the aforesaid period of limitation, is barred by time.
9. ' In view of the aforesaid the present appeal is not competent in law and is accordingly dismissed in limine. dismissed.