' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , 'J.---Through instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 29-12-2010, passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate, Malir, Karachi, in Criminal Case No, 39 of 1996 (The State v. Ahmed Mirani and 2 others), whereby, the trial Court acquitted the respondents under section 245(1), Cr.P.C, by extending them benefit of doubt.
2. The appeal was barred by 20 days, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant was required to satisfy this. Court, on the point of limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the sole ground that the appellant being illiterate person having no knowledge of law was misguided by his advocate appearing on his behalf before the. Trial Court, that the time for filing the criminal acquittal appeal is 60 days therefore the appellant has not filed the appeal within time. Learned advocate for the appellant further insisted that technicalities should be overlooked, they should not stand in the way of disposal of appeal on merits. He has relied upon the following citations:--
(i) PLD 1960 (W.P) Lah 646, (Abdul Waheed v. The State).
(ii) 1999 SCMR 610 (The State v. Nazir Ahmed).
(iii) 1993 SCMR 785 (Munawar Hussain alias Bobi and 2 others v. The State).
(iv) PLD 1996 Lahore 471 (Muhammad Sharif v. Jamshed Ali and others).
(v) 1982 SCMR 420 (Bakhat Baidar v. The State)
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has rebutted the plea of learned counsel for the appellant for not filing the appeal Within time and has contended that mere ignorance of law is no ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the following citations:--
(i) 2011 PCr.LJ 441 (Abdul Ghaffar v. Muhammad Asif and another).
(ii) 2009 YLR 580 (Pervez Peter v. The State).
(iii) 2010 YLR 1322 (The State/Anti-Narcotics Force through.Deputy Director (Law), Karachi v.
Muhammad Adeel Hussain and another).
(iv) 2008 MLD 187 Karachi (Roshan v. Muhammad Saleh and 2 others)
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The legal respect of the case is that the period prescribed in special or local law will prevail over that of Limitation Act, however, delay in filing the appeal can be condoned if there appears that the delay was caused by an act of the acquitted accused or by the circumstances of compelling nature. Reliance is placed on 2009 PCr.LJ 199 (The State v. Tanveer-ul-Hassan and 5 others). In the instant case the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any act on the part of the acquitted accused/respondents which prevented the appellant in filing the appeal within the prescribed time nor compelling circumstances have been brought on record in order to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Further the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was misguided by his advocate appearing on his behalf before the trial Court finds no support from admitted fact that neither, the appellant has disclosed the name of advocate, who allegedly misguided him in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act nor in its supporting affidavit, even during the arguments before this Court. The impugned judgment also bears no name of the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, which goes to show that none was appearing on behalf of the appellant before the Trial Court and plea taken for condonation of delay seems to be afterthought. Besides above, the appellant was also not vigilant as the impugned judgment was passed on 29-12-2010, whereas, he approached the trial Court and applied for certified copy on 4- 2-2011 about six days after the expiry of appeal period. The certified copy was signed by the Presiding Officer on the same day i.e, on 4-2-2011 and delivered to the appellant but appeal was filed on 17-2-2011 with further delay of 13 days after receiving the certified copy. It is settled principle that when law require a thing to be done in particular manner then same should be done in the manner prescribed by law. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to appreciate the above principle and to explain properly the period of delay in filing the appeal, mere unawareness/ignorance of law is no ground for condonation of delay. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable as the said decisions were on the criminal appeals against convictions.
6. For the reasons as stated hereinabove, there appears no reason to condone the delay in filing the acquittal appeal. I, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation of delay being C.M.A.
No,1199 of 2011 and in consequence whereof the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed being time-barred.