' Applicant Salim Ahmad Khan was arrested in Crime No, 3 of 1986 of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi, for the offence under sections 420, 468, 471 and 161. P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that he was attempting to make deposit of amount against allotment challans issued to fictitious persons by the Officials of K.D.A.A sum of Rs,2,68,313 was secured from his possession at the time of his arrest. The applicant applied for the return of this amount to him under section 523, Cr.P.C. , which application was disposed of by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi, vide order, dated 23-2-1986, in the following terms:- "Heard the counsel for the applicant and the P.Dy.S.P. Atcording to the learned P.Dy.S.P. The amount was being deposited in the names of fictitious persons with the intention to cheat K.D.A. For the allotment of the land. Since the amount was not yet deposited in the bank, it would be premature to say that it was being deposited to deceive K.D.A. For obtaining the land. The amount involved in the case may be released after furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of the amount involved in the case. The remaining articles may be returned after personal identification."
2. After about three years the applicant has now approached this Court by filing this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., with a prayer that the condition of furnishing of the Bank Guarantee be eliminated from the impugned order.
3. Notwithstanding- the difference of language employed in section 439, Cr.P.C. And section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the scope of powers enjoyed by the High Court is more or less the same. Therefore, a revision application or an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is to be filed within a reasonable period. While examining the period of limitation in relation to a Criminal Revision in Muhammad Nur Ali and others v. The State reported in PLD 1961 Dacca 239, late Hamood-ur-Rehman, J. (as he then was) observed:- "But so far as the District Courts are concerned, the practice is that the applications for revision before Courts of Sessions or District Magistrates are filed within thirty days of the order complained of by analogy with the period of limitation provided for in cases of appeals. This rule is also followed more or less strictly. It is, in my view, also highly desirable that a uniform practice should prevail in such cases; but at the same time, it cannot be said that this rule should become an inflexible one and should not be departed from even in exceptional cases. But where it is so departed from, it would only be reasonable to expect that some reason for such departure would be given indicating the exceptional nature of the circumstance upon the ground of which the departure is being made."
4. This point was again examined by a Division Bench in the case reported as The State v. Raja Khan PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 253, and following observations were made:- "Although, however, there is no period fixed for filing a revision against an order of acquittal, the interests of justice demand that it should be filed within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will of course depend on the circumstances of each case, it being impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule on this point. In the present case the respondent was acquitted on the 19th of December, 1960 and the revisions were filed on the 1st of February, 1962. This inordinate delay of about 13-1/2 months in filing the revisions after the acquittal of the respondent has not been satisfactorily explained, and in fact no explanation has been given at all for filing them so late.
Whatever the reason for delay may be, it was evidently not due to the departmental proceedings taken against the respondent, as he was removed from service on or about the 4th of October, 1956, as is clear from the report of the Superintendent Post Offices, Gujrat, dated the 14th of December, 1960, at page 63 of the file. We, therefore, do not think it expedient to interfere at this stage and dismiss the revision petitions."
5. The summary dismissal of a revision application on the ground of delay by the High Court had the approval of the Supreme Court in Montaz All v. The State reported in 1970 SCMR 850.
6. No explanation was offered by the applicant for this abnormal delay of about three years in taking recourse to the application under section 561-A, IA Cr.P.C. The application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
7. On merits also the applicant has got no case. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. No case for interference is made out and the D application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is dismissed.