1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioners in this case were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar, at Sanghar, for offences under sections 148, 452, 366, 326, 324 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 149 thereof and sentenced for a maximum term of four years' rigorous imprisonment under section 366, P. P. C.
2. They came to the High Court in appeal which was allowed to the extent that their convictions and sentences under sections 366 and 452, P.P. C. Were set aside but the rest of their convictions and sentences were maintained with the result that the maximum sentence now was two years under section 326, P. P. C. They now seek special leave to appeal, but this petition is barred by seven days and the only explanation given for the delay in the condonation application is that the learned Advocate, who appeared for them in the High Court, did not inform them either about the date of the judgment or the result of the appeal, and that it was only by chance that one of the petitioners came to know about the dismissal on the 16th of July 1973. He, thereupon, came to Karachi and applied for a certified copy of the judgment which he received on the 21st of July 1973. Then he again went back to get the power of attorney signed by the other petitioners and ultimately returned on the 27th of July 1973 to present this application on the following day. Apart from the apse dixit of the deponent, there is nothing else on the record to support any one of these statements.
3. The petitioners were bailed out during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court and, therefore, it was their duty to keep to touch with their Advocate who also belonged to Hyderabad and to watch the progress of the appeal. If they did not do so, they were negligent and cannot now throw the entire blame on the learned Advocate. There is nothing on the record also to show whether they had given the learned Advocate a properly stamped envelope or post-card to inform them of the result of the appeal.
4. We have not also been told as to how the petitioner Roshan Din came to know of the dismissal of the appeal on the 16th of July 1973. In the circumstances, we are not at all convinced that the delay was beyond the control of the petitioners. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as barred by time.