' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1-7-2008 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No, 177 of 2006 where the judgment of learned trial Court was set aside and the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge.
2. Precisely the stated facts of the case are that the respondent/accused was apprehended by the officials of Customs Department near Ajab Bagh and 48 kgs of charas were recovered from the secrete cavities of the vehicle. The trial Court convicted the accused for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 100,000 in default whereof the accused was ordered to suffer further imprisonment for one year. The accused preferred appeal, which was allowed by Peshawar High Court and the accused was acquitted of the charge. Hence this petition for leave appeal.
3. This petition is barred by 14 days. Petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay for the following reasons:-- "2. That the above titled Criminal P.L.A. Is being filed with a delay of 13 days due to the fact that the documents pertaining to the above titled case were misplaced and mixed up in other cases meant for filing C.P.L.A. Against the judgment of various Hon'ble High Courts hence it could not be filed within time and only were traceable on 14-9-2008 mixed up with documents received from F.B.R.
For filing C.P.L.A. In Sales Tax Appeal No, 109 of 2002 and Sales Tax Appeal No, 23 of 2003 titled Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise v. Messrs Walt Noble Chemicals Limited in which the last date for filing was 15-9-2008 hence delay has caused which was neither intentional nor ddliberate but due to above reasons stated above.
3. That the applicant has prima facie a good case which is likely to succeed and if delay in filing Cr.P.L.A. Is not condoned and matter heard on merits the applicant is bound to suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on account of bona tide mistake explained in the above para petition for leave to appeal was not filed within time. Whereas on the other hand learned counsel for the accused opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that it is a criminal case and after acquittal, a valuable right has accrued to the petitioner. Reference in this behalf has been placed by him upon the case of Munawar Hussain v. The State (1993 SCM R 785); Fakhar-ud-Din v. Fazal Karim (1999 SCM R 795) and Abdullah Jan v. State (2003 SCM R 1063).
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Admittedly the petition is barred by time. The ground mentioned in the application is not recognized under the law to be a ground for condoning the delay. We are .Confronted with the situation where on the one hand condonation of delay is being claimed for the reasons mentioned in the application and on the other hand if the delay is condoned and the judgment is interfered with, the respondent is likely to suffer life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs, 1,00,2000 under section 9(c) of the C.N.S.A, 1997, therefore, in our opinion, justice demands that in such like cases, we should not condone the delay because it, otherwise, will become a precedent and at the same time accused will have to suffer, not on account of his own fault but on account of act mentioned in the application of petitioner's counsel.
6. Therefore, -petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.