1. ' ABDUL RASOOL, MEMON, J.---The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 26-10-2009, passed by the Vth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central, whereby the respondents Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted in Criminal Case No.413 of 2007 (F.I.R. No.168 of 2006, under sections 420/ 406/506, P.P.C. Of Police Station Khawaja Ajmair Nagri).
2. ' On 3-3-2011 the appellant filed this appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Alongwith an application under section 5 of Limitation Act bearing M.A. No.1505 of 2011 for condonation of delay of 17 months and 6 days. The appellant was called upon to satisfy the Court on the point of maintainability of appeal filed after prescribed period of limitation.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal as the appellant was kept unaware by his counsel, in such circumstances, the delay can be condoned in acquittal appeal filed by a private complainant if it is shown that the appellant was kept out of knowledge of the acquittal and/or prevented by some act of the respondents coming in time. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of State v. Nazir Ahmad (1999 SCMR 610) and Mst.
4. Zeenat Sultan v. Mumtaz Khan and 9 other (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 667).
5. ' Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3, in rebuttal, has argued that after insertion of subsection (2-A) in section 417, Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condonation of delay in an acquittal appeal filed under section 417, Cr.P.C; that an inordinate delay of more than 17 months and 6 days, has not been properly explained as the complainant/ appellant and his witnesses were examined in the trial Court and they were aware of the pendency of case; that law favours those who are vigilant and not indolent. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst.
6. Mumtaz (PLD 1976 SC 572), Dil Muhammad v. Riayasat Hussain and 3 others (PLD 2001 (AJ&K) 4, NIB Bank Limited, Karachi v. The State and 3 others 2010 CLD 10, The State v. Ahmed Bakhsh and others (2012 PCr.LJ 1835) and an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.111 of 2012.
7. ' Learned A.P.-G. Has supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3.
8. ' Perusal of appellant's affidavit, annexed with M.A. No.1505 of 2011, would reveal that after recording his evidence, the appellant was waiting to be informed by his counsel but who did not do so, due to which he could not challenge the judgment in time.
9. ' For maintaining this appeal, appellant has to explain each day's delay but he has failed, and explanation offered so far is without any substance for the reason that a party has to be so conscious and fully vigilant in respect of his relief and claim and in case of failure no one can be said to be responsible for his act and negligence. In case of failure he cannot blame anybody else, inasmuch as, unawareness is not a ground of condonation of delay, even delay of one day has not been condoned in an acquittal appeal. Reliance is placed on the case of. Noor Hassan v.
10. Muhammad Salim (1985 SCMR 893).
11. ' It is pertinent to mention here that subsection (2-A) of section 417, Cr.P.C. Was inserted by way of Act No. XIX of 199.4 which for the first time provided the right of appeal against acquittal to an aggrieved person and so also the limitation of 30 days was prescribed in said subsection of section 417, Cr.P.C. In this manner the special limitation prescribed by Statute itself was not subject to the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act due to bar contained in section 29(2)(a) and (b) of the Limitation Act. In this context I am fortified by a case of Roshan v. Muhammad Saleh and 2 others (2008 MLD 187).
12. ' It is not the case of the appellant that he was prevented by some act of the respondents coming in Court in time, therefore, the case-laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no relevancy with the circumstances of this case.
13. ' In the light of above legal and factual aspect of the matter, the conduct of the appellant and his explanation appears to be unreasonable. Resultantly the appeal being barred by 17 months and 6 days, is dismissed in limine along with listed applications.