' QAISER RASHID KHAN J.---Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner/State seeks to recall the order dated 22-6-2011 passed by this court, whereby the Criminal Appeal No,13 of 2011 was dismissed being hopelessly barred by time. Likewise, the petitioner has also sought condonation of delay through Criminal Miscellaneous No,332 of 2011 in the filing of restoration application. This order is directed to dispose of both these petitions.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. In the case in hand, the State through the Advocate-General KPK had filed an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Against the judgment dated 20-12-2010 of the learned Additional Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for Southern Districts Bannu Camp Court D.I. Khan, whereby the accused/respondents were acquitted of the charge brought against them in case F.I.R. No,91 dated 23-4-2009 under section 167, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment D.I. Khan. The appeal was argued before another honourable Bench of this court on 22-6-2011 and it was held that as the impugned judgment was passed on 20-12-2010, while the State appeal was filed on 17-2-2011 and the period prescribed under the law for filing such an appeal is thirty days, therefore, the appeal being barred by twenty-nine days was dismissed.
4. With due deference to the honourable Bench, the impugned order dated 22-6-2011 was passed probably on account of lack of assistance rendered by the counsel for the parties as the same was in oblivion to the law on the subject. Article 157 of the Limitation Act provides for six months period for filing a State appeal from the date of order of acquittal and certainly not thirty days as held in the impugned order.
5. Now when the law on the subject is abundantly clear as far as the period provided for the Provincial Government to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is concerned, it is about time that this court should invoke its inherent powers to remedy the situation, or for that matter, to undo a wrong and that is what section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is 'all about and indeed caters to such eventualities.
6. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "Saving of inherent power of High Court:- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code; or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
7. Thus in a situation where the impugned order was prima facie, passed either on account of lack of assistance rendered to the honourable Bench or confusion or accidental slip, but certainly for no fault on the part of the petitioner, then section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Must come to its rescue so as to secure the ends of justice. In the case of Gul Muhammad and others v. The State reported in 1999 SCM R 2765,
8. For the reasons discussed above, Criminal Miscellaneous No,332 of 2011 is allowed, the impugned order of this court dated 22-6-2011 is recalled and the Criminal A. No,13 of 2011 is restored to its original number.
9. As far as Criminal Miscellaneous No,332 of 2011 for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Miscellaneous No,331 of 2011 is concerned, the same is also allowed in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and that too, in a situation where the basic order from which the petitioner is aggrieved was erroneous. The petitioner must not suffer on account of such act of the court and that is how the old adage goes that a judge must wear all the laws on the sleeves of his robes. To err is human, but the error of the court in like manner situation must be rectified by the court itself,, to meet the ultimate objective, i,e,, secure the ends of justice.