' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the facts that Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Siddique appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur Camp at Pattoki, on the charge of keeping 890 grams of heroin which was recovered from a plastic envelope lying underneath the pillow on a cot on which they were sitting at the time of raid on 30- 6-1991 at 3-30 p.m. In a street in Mohallah Nazir Shah, Bahi Pheru Town, who, vide judgment dated 25-7-1993, convicted them under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Order) and sentenced them to ten years' R.I., thirty stripes and fine of Rs,10,000, each, or two years' R.I. Each in default. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.0 was, however, given to them. The appeal filed by them against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on 13-12-1993 as barred by 34 days. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court which was granted on 18-4- 1995 to consider whether the Federal Shariat Court was legally justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since no limitation was provided in law for filing appeal against the judgments of the trial Court before the Federal Shariat Court, the appeal could not have been dismissed as barred by time. He also argued that the reasons given by the Federal Shariat Court are not relatable to the appellants' own conduct as they were in the jail and Pathana - the father of Muhammad Siddique appellant and the uncle of Nazir Ahmad appellant, who had been pursuing their case had fallen ill and was not in a position to obtain certified copy of the judgment till 13-10-1993, and after taking the Power of Attorney from the appellants he filed appeal on 28-10-1993. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment.
3. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties with care.
We find that under Rule 18(A) read with Rule 22-A of the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981 the period of sixty days for filing a criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court has been provided. So, there is no force and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no limitation has been provided in law for filing a Criminal Appeal before the Federal Shariat Court. Adverting to the explanation given by the counsel for the appellant for not filing the appeal within sixty days of judgment, we find that the learned Federal Shariat Court has elaborately discussed this explanation in paragraph 4 of the judgment which reads:- "The record of the copying agency of the office of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kasur reveals that certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for and obtained for the appellants by one Muhammad Din, son of Sugaira, caste Rajput, resident of Lambay Jagir, on the 25th July, 1993, the day the impugned judgment was delivered. Later on Faqir Hussain son of Ibrahim, applied for and got certified copies of the judgment and other documents on the 13th October, 1993. These are the documents which have been placed on the record of appeal by the appellants. It shows that the certified copy of the judgment had been obtained on behalf of the appellants on the 25th July, 1993. The time of limitation for filing appeal started running from the 25th July, 1993. It seems that in order to cover up the time gap another set of certified copies were obtained on the 13th October, 1993. The ruse does not seem to have succeeded. The medical certificates regarding the alleged illness of Pathana were produced by the appellants as late as on the 29th November, 1993. They appear to be a managed affair. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants being inside the jail were not aware of what was happening outside the jail and were not to be punished for any attempt made on their behalf to get them released on bail is too specious to be accepted for condoning delay. The abominable act of forging the order of this Court and applying most condemnable tactics for securing the illegal release of the appellants on bail cannot be taken out of consideration for dealing with the question of condoning delay in filing appeal. The appellants and their kith and kin were well aware of the passing of the judgment and the need to file appeal in time. They worked in the wrong way to get the appellants freed from jail. No justifiable cause exists for extending the prescribed period of limitation for filing appeal."
4. We do not see any legal or factual infirmity in the reasons c given by the Federal Shariat Court for treating the appeal before it as barred by time.
5. For all these reasons, we feel that no case for interference is made out with the well-reasoned order/judgment of the Federal Shariat Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.