' This Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal is directed against judgment, dated 7-3-1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab. The present petitioner preferred complaint under section 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. Against respondents Nos.2 to 8 before Sessions Judge, Khushab, which was entrusted to Ch. Muhammad Mehmood, Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab. The learned Additional Sessions Judge referred the matter to Ilaqa Magistrate for report and inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. The required report was submitted by Illaqa Magistrate after going through the report the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 7-3-1991 dismissed the complaint.
2. This petition has been filed to seek leave to appeal against the above said judgment. It was originally filed on 21-4-1991. The office as per Rules of Lahore High Court checked the petition and raised objection to the effect that the petition was not properly stamped and that the documents were not properly flagged. The objection sheet attached to the petition shows that these objections were taken on 24-4-1991 and the petition was ordered to be resubmitted after removal of objections within seven days. The petitioner, however, did not correct the petition till 18-12-1991 and after having corrected the same on that date the petitioner refilled the same on 12-1-1992, as is evident from the note of office. The objection sheet is also duly signed by the learned counsel for petitioner. The petition was fixed for 13-1-1992 i,e, on the very next date after its refiling. An objection was raised by the Court vide order, dated 16-4-1997 to the effect:-- "the impugned judgment is dated 7-4-1991 whereas the present Cr.P.S.L.A. Has been filed on 12-1- 1992 as is evident from the stamp and signature of the said date.
(2) Therefore, the learned counsel is directed to address arguments regarding the present petition being time-barred."
' The case was adjourned to 14-5-1997. On 14-5-1997 the learned counsel further requested time to deal with the objection raised by the Court. The case was again fixed for 4-6-1997, when again on request of learned counsel further time was allowed for preparation. The case was put up before this Bench on 19-8-1998 and on request of the learned counsel it was again adjourned to 3-9-1998.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petition was originally filed on 21-4-1991 as a motion case. The office raised objection on 24-5-1991, but did not convey it to the petitioner or her counsel and it was only on the enquiry of the counsel the objection raised by office came to his knowledge on 18-12-1991 for the first time. Then the objection Was removed and the case was refiled on 12-1-1992.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the petition was filed on 21-4-1991, but original filing of petition would not come to the help of the petitioner inasmuch as the same was not competently filed. It was due to negligence of the petitioner that for full eight months she did not care to enquire about pendency of her petition and it is also not believable that the petitioner did not come to know of above said rising of objection by the office for such a long time. Even after knowledge i,e, allegedly on 18-12- 1991 the petition was refilled on 12-1-1992 without any explanation whatsoever for refilling the petition which had become barred by limitation. Even the petitioner did not care to file an application for condo nation of delay in spite of the fact that a number of adjournments were granted to her. I am fortified by a D.B. Judgment delivered by this Court in case Named Ahmad v.
Asif Riaz and 3 others PLD 1996 Lah. 702, wherein it has been held that the time fixed by Deputy Registrar/Office of this Court for refilling of the appeal should be strictly adhered to and if the appeal is not filed within the time fixed by the Deputy Registrar, the same shall be deemed to have been rejected on the same day on which it is refilled as the same had become time-barred. The delay in filing the appeal shall not be condoned unless a reasonable explanation is given therefor.
As stated above no explanation whatsoever has been advanced for refilling the petition after a period of eight months Admittedly, the petition was collected on 18-12-1991 and was refilled on 12-1- 1992, therefore, the time taken beyond time specified by the office would neither be excluded nor added to the limitation while computing the limitation for filing the appeal and if, in the meanwhile, the petition had become barred by time, the only course open to the appellant would be to apply for condo nation of delay by furnishing explanation therefor. In the instant case no such effort was made by the appellant as no application has been filed to explain the delay in refilling the petition and it was only at the time of hearing that the learned counsel tried to argue that the objection raised by the office and subsequent return was not duly conveyed to him, therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay in collecting the petition and filing the same beyond the period of, limitation. I do not agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel as it was the duty of the petitioner or her counsel to watch the list affixed on the notice board or peruse other circulated list in regard to the objection cases. Both of them have failed in performing their duty, therefore, nobody else is to be blamed.
5. Prior to the complaint a F.I.R. No,130 of 1990, dated 17-5-1990 under section 302, P.P.C. Was got registered about the murder of Mst. Aziz Fatima at the instance of Falak Sher son of Haji Ghulam Muhammad. In the said F.I.R. Amir Ali son of Shah Wali was named only accused of the occurrence.
The challah against him was submitted and said Amir Ali was tried by the same Additional Sessions Judge and was acquitted vide order, dated 15-9-1990. The present petitioner never appeared before any Investigating Officer to state the story of murder of Mst. Aziz Fatima by other accused, who were, subsequently, named in the complaint. It is also noteworthy that none of the witnesses, mentioned in the complaint and examined by the learned Magistrate, ever appeared before any Investigating Officer. It is borne out from the record that one Ghulam Rasool son of Ata Rasool filed a complaint after submission of challah against Amir Ali before the Court. The said complaint was fixed for various dates but nobody appeared and resultantly it was dismissed. Amir Ali was also acquitted by the Court on 15-9-1990 and on the same date the petitioner submitted the complaint against respondents. The report under section 202, Cr.P.C. Submitted by the Illaqa Magistrate also reveals that the complaint was afterthought.
6. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on facts.