1. HAMID SAEED MALIK, J.---The accused/respondent, namely, Khan Wali, was tried by the learned Special Judge Lakki who vide his order dated 20-8-1995 acquitted him from the charge under section 13 of Arms Ordinance.
2. 2.The prosecution case in brief is that Kalam Rais Khan S.H.O. Police Station Naurang on receipt an information about the presence of the accused/respondent in his house who was a proclaimed offender in case F.I.R. No.4 dated 9-1-1992 under section 324/34, P.P.C. of Police Station Naurang raided the house of the accused and apprehended him alongwith an un-licenced Klashnikov having three chargers and 145 live cartridges of 7.62 bore.
3. 3.After conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge acquitted the accused/respondent from the charge vide order dated 20-8-1995 on the grounds that the case property was neither exhibited nor produced before the Court; and that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. before conducting raid on the house of the accused were not complied with.
4. 4.Without discussing merits of the case, the instant appeal is not maintainable being time-barred, as the impugned order was passed on 20-8-1995 while the appeal was filed 'on 13-2-1996, i,e, after a delay of more than four months. the explanation furnished for this delay as per Criminal Miscellaneous No.6 of 1996 that due to late receipt of file and late recommendations to file an appeal from the Government of N.-W.F.P.; the delay had occasioned which was neither intentional nor deliberate.
5. 5.We are, however, not persuaded to accept the reasons given for the said delay. To us it is not a mistake but the delay caused was due to lack of diligence and carelessness. The august Supreme Court in the case reported as 1972 SCM R 331 has held that in petitions against acquittal delay cannot be condoned unless it is shown that petitioner was precluded from filing his petition in time due to some act of the acquitted respondent or by some circumstances of compelling nature beyond his control.
6. 6.We, therefore, hold that art appeal against acquittal could not be entertained unless filed within the requisite period of limitation and when filed thereafter, unless it is shown that such delay was due to the act of the acquitted co-accused or by some circumstances of compelling nature beyond the control of the appellant including the State.
7. 7.In the present appeal, we find no cogent and valid reasons which restrained the State from filing the appeal in time.
8. 8.As a result, the appeal is without any meritable consideration and is hereby dismissed in limine.