ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd December , 2020 (hereinafter "the impugned order ") passed by learned Special Judge Anti-T errorism Court-I, Quetta (hereinafter "the trial Court ") in, FIR No. 47 of 2019, dated 14.11.2019 under sections 11F(2), (5) and (6) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 ("the Act") Police Station CTD Quetta, whereby the appellant confessed his guilt before the learned trial Court so he was convicted and sentenced under Section 11(F) of the Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.4000/- in default whereof he was directed to suffer S.I. for fifteen days. He was further convicted under subsection (1) of section 11-F of the Act and sentenced under subsection (2) of section 11-F of the Act to suffer R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for ten days with benefit of Section' 382-B, Cr . P. C 2.The prosecution story , in brief, as per contents of FIR, are that on 14.11.2019 complainant Muhammad Atiq Khan IP registered the FIR No 47 of 2019 with the averments that he received spy information that one suspected person is collecting fund for banned organization Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, upon one constable was sent to accused with a currency note of Rs.1000/-. The accused received the same and issued a receipt of Falah Insaniat Foundation. The constable told that the name of the accused working for proscribed organization is Abdullah, whereafter the accused was arrested from Nawan Kili for collecting chanda/donation for the proscribed organization Falah Insaniat Foundation. Hence the crime report.
3. After completion of usual investigation challan of the case was submitted before the trial court. On 02.12.2019 charge was framed against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded guilty and confessed his guilt. A show-cause notice was given to the accused as to why he should not be convicted on basis, of pleading guilty to which he gave no plausible explanation except, that he being poor person be dealt with leniently .
4. A show-cause notice was given to the appellant by the trial Court as to why he should not be convicted on the basis of his plea of guilt he gave no plausible explanation except, that he being poor person be dealt with leniently .
5. After hearing arguments of the parties and considering the relevant aspects of the case in the light of plead guilty , the learned trial Judge vide impugned order dated convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision petition bearing No. 10 of 2020 under sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. before this court on 11.05.2020. Through Cr.M.A. No. 124 of 2020 filed on 21.05.2020, learned counsel for the appellant solicited permission of this court to convert the revision petition into criminal appeal being filed under section 25 of the Act. The said application was accepted vide order dated 17.06.2020 passed by this court, whereafter the revision petition was converted into Criminal Appeal bearing No.1 13 of 2020.
5(sic). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record of the case with his valuable assistance.
6. Record clearly reveals that the appellant was intimated about the charge and its consequences and show-cause notice was also given to him under sectio n 243, Cr.P.C. The appellant remained consistent with his statement. The trial Court after fulfilling codal formalities recorded his confessional statement. It is a common practice that once a person, involved in a criminal case wants to plead guilty to the charge leveled again st him and places himself at the mercy of the court, he becomes a friend of the court and the court always takes lenient view in respect of his sentence. The trial Judge has rightly taken a lenient view in respect of the sentences recorded against the appellant, which are neither illegal nor contrary to the punishments provided under the Act. Even otherwise, by virtue of the provisions of section 412, Cr.P.C. an accused, who pleaded guilty to the charge has no right of appeal against his conviction but he can maintain an appeal only to the extent of the legality of the sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court.
7. The appellant was convicted on 3rd December 2019 and the criminal revision petition bearing No. 10 of 2020 was filed under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. on 11.5.2020 before this court along with-an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
8. The criminal revision petition against the impugned order is not maintainable in law under the provisions of the Act. There is no specific provision in Act for challenging the order by way of revis ion application. By section 32 of the Act the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has been made applicable for certain purposes. In case the provisions of Cr.P.C. are inconsistent to any provision of the Act, those are to be struck down. It will be pertinent to reproduce herein under section 32 of the Act for ready reference: "32. Overriding effect of Act.---(1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law but, save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the 'prov isions' of this Act, apply to the proceeding s before an Anti-T errorism Court and for the purpose of the said provisions of the Code, an Anti-T errorism Court shall be deemed to be Court of Session.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in subsection (1), the provisions, of section 350 of the Code shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings before an Anti-T errorism Court and for this purpose any reference in those provisions to a Magistrate shall be construed as a reference to an Anti- Terrorism Court. "
Bare reading of section 32 of the Act shows that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are applicable to the extent that they are not inconsistent with other provisions of the Act. While considering the question of applicability of section 435, Cr.P.C. it is essential to glance over sections 25 and 31 of the Act. For the sake of convenience both provisions are reproduced here under: "Section 25. Appeal .--(1) An Appeal against the final judgment of an Anti-T errorism Court shall lie to a High Court.
(2) Copies of the judgment of an Anti- Terrorism Court shall be supplied to the accused and the Public Prosecutor free of cost on the day of the judgment is pronounced and the record of the trial shall be transmitted to the High Court within three days of the decision.
(3) An appeal under subsection (1) may be preferred by a person sentenced by an Anti-T errorism Court to a High Court within seven days of the passing of the sentence.
(4) The Attorney-General or an Advocate-General may, on being directed by the Federal or Provincial Government, file an appeal against an order of acquitta l or a sentence passed by an Anti-T errorism Court within fifteen days of such order .
(5) An appeal under this section shall be heard and decided by a High Court within seven working days."
"Section 31. Finality of judgment. "---A judgment or order passed, or sentence awarded, by Anti-T errorism Court subject to the result of an appeal under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court."
The perusal of section 31 of the Act shows that the judgment or order passed or sentence awarded by the Anti- Terrorism Court, subject to the result of an appeal shall be final. The wisdom behin d enacting section 31 of the Act by the Legislature appears to be that trial shall be concluded within 7 days and so also the appeal by High. Court.
The section 25 of the Act postulates that after judgment is pronounced, the copy is to be supplied to the accused as well as to Public Prosecutor and record of the case is to be transmitted to the High Court within three days. The entire procedure has been made automatic. The appeal is only provided against the judgment of acquittal or conviction and all the other orders become final as contemplated under section 31 of the Act. Thus the sections 435 and 439, Cr .P.C. are repugnant to the provisions of the Act reproduced hereinabove.
9. The order passed by the Special Court cannot be challenged/ assailed by way of revision as the appeal is provided only against the judgment of conviction or acquittal. The provisions of sections 25, 31 and 32 of the Act are to be read in conjunction and not in isolation to each other . They do not permit to challenge the order passed by Special. Court in revision.
10. The learned counsel tried to cover the limitation by filing the revision petition under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. before this court, which was subsequently converted into criminal appeal under section 25 of the Act by this court vide order dated 17.06.2020 on the application filed by learned counsel for the appellant.
11. Apparently the appeal is time barred by five months and seven days as the appeal is required to be filed within a period of 15 days from the date of impu gned order as per section 25 of the Act. The Act is a special statute and it overrides the general law. Section 32 of the Act provides that the Act has an overriding effect, which has already been reproduced herein above.
12. The appellant has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitatio n Act, for condoning the delay .
Section 5 of Limitation Act, would be applicable, subject to provision 29 of the said Act, which provides that if a time is provided under any statute for filing appeal etc, which is different from the time mentioned in the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, then the section 5 would not be applicable unless it is made applicable by the statute under which the appeal is filed.
13. There is no provision in the Act, to authorize the court to invoke the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The time provided under the Anti-T errorism Act for filing the appeal is different from the time provided in the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act for filing such appeal. Thus, section 5 would not be applicable in the instant case; hence the delay cannot be condoned by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act.
As stated above, the sentences are quite legal and appropriate. Since, there is no force in the instant appeal which is also barred by time, therefore same is dismissed.