1. ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---This application has been moved on behalf of the appellants under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in institution of the present appeal.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this application are that the judgment was announced on 24-10-1994 by the Trial Court whereby the present respondent I was acquitted but the appeal has been instituted on 19-2-1995 much beyond the statutory period of 30 days as provided under section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act. In this view of the matter the appeal on the face of it is hopelessly barred by the limitation. However, the grounds advanced in the affidavit filed in support of this application by dealing clerk of A the office of Advocate-General, Sindh that the District Public Prosecutor (South), Karachi and District Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad had kept away the file with them and, therefore, appeal could not be filed within time. It is clear negligence and cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly we dismiss this application. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed.
3. Another question arises in the matter. The judgment shows that the respondent was charged with the allegation of having attempted to abduct for 8 ransom. Section 365-A, P.P.C. Is a scheduled offence which reads as under: -- "Kidnapping or abduction for extorting proper valuable security, e.t.c.--- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person for the purpose of extorting from the person kidnapped or abducted, or from any person interested in the person kidnapped or abducted, any property, whether movable or immovable, or valuable security, or to compel any person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise, for obtaining release of the person kidnapped or abducted, shall be punished with `death or' and shall also liable to forfeiture of property."
4. This provision shows that the person who has abducted would be liable to such charge. It does not provide for punishment for attempting the commission of the said offence. However, section 511, P.P.C. Deals with the offences pertaining to attempts and section 511, P.P.C. Has not been included in the schedule attached to the above Act. Section 511, P.P.C. Reads as under:-- "Punishment for attempting to commit offence -punishable with imprisonment for life or for a shorter terms.---Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall where no express provision is made by, this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offences for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both." .
5. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the very trial held by the Special Court stands vitiated as the Court had no jurisdiction to try the said case.