' This is an acquittal appeal filed by Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the State under section 417, Cr.P.C. This acquittal appeal was filed on 14-9-1995 against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, dated 15-3-1995. On 27-11-1995 office has raised two objections, firstly, how this acquittal appeal is within time and, secondly, certified copy of judgment to be filed. Till this date no certified copy of impugned judgment is filed. On 12-11-1995 at the request. Of Mr. Suleman Habibullah, appearing from Advocate-General, one weeks' time was granted. Again on 17-1-1996 A.A.-G., Sindh was granted time to study the law of limitation. Lastly, on 19-2-1997 one months' time was allowed to meet the office objections.
2. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Nabi Soomro, A.A.-G. For the State. The learned A.A.-G. Is not able to show how the appeal could be considered in absence of a certified copy of the impugned judgment and how this appeal was in time although sufficient time was taken by him.
3. Section 419, Cr.P.C. Provides as under:--
419. Petition of appeal.--- Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader, and every such petition shall (unless the. Court to which it is presented otherwise directs) be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against."
4. A plain reading of the section would show that the filing of the certified copy of the judgment or the order, which is being challenged by way of an appeal should accompany the memorandum of the appeal. The purpose, however, is that the Court to whom the memorandum of appeal is presented should be in a position to know that what accompanies the memorandum of appeal is true transcription of the original judgment. This means that the appellant should satisfy the Court or should prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the copy accompanying the memo. of appeal reproduces correctly what is contended in the original judgment. In absence of such qualification "certified", "authenticated" or "granted by the Court" it cannot be said that the word "copy" in the section 419, Cr.P.C. Means certified copy., In the instant case, however, only a photostat copy of the judgment has been filed and the learned A.A.-G. Did not even care to file a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
5. The other crucial objection, which has been pointed out by the office is that of the limitation. The State, as already mentioned, had been taking time for studying the point of limitation, but it has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that the appeal is within time. No distinction has been made in the law between Government and the private individual and in the eye of law both stand on the same footing. Admittedly, this appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in case of State v. Muhammad Hashim. Thus, it was the duty of the State to bring this appeal within time. The non-filing of such copy without any satisfactory explanation would render the appeal as not properly filed and comes within the mischief of Article 157 of the Limitation Act.
Even after filing of the photostat copy of the impugned judgment no application for condoning the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved disclosing the inability of the State for filing the copy of the impugned judgment. Thus, it would appear that this appeal seems to be time- barred. Reliance in this regard can be placed on a D.B. Decision reported in U.P. State v. Christopher Tobit AIR 1955 All.
473.
6. The question now would arise whether this delay could be condoned. As already mentioned no request was made by the State by way of application or otherwise to condone the delay as such the delay comes in the way of the appellant which cannot be condoned in circumstances. Reliance can be placed in a case Crown v. Fazal Karim PLD 1954 Baluchistan 33 wherein it was held that under section 5 and Article 157 of the Limitation Act the appeal against the acquittal preferred beyond six months' the delay cannot be condoned, without sufficient cause. In this case, no reason for delay has been specifically given. At the time when the appeal was presented without the certified copy of the order it was only a formal submission of the appeal on 14-9-1995. Subsequent filing of the certified copy after 27-11-1995 would amount to preferring of the appeal after the period of limitation. Although, this Court has jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation, it would not be proper to allow the extension when no reason is given for the delay in submission of this appeal.
Moreover, neither an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved nor formal request has also been made for condoning the delay. In the circumstances, we do not find that the appeal has been properly preferred and the same is also time-barred. Hence, it is dismissed.