' This appeal has been filed under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Against the order dated 17-1-1995 passed by Magistrate Section 30, Pasroor whereby respondents Nos.1 to 7 were acquitted of the charge under section 337-A(ii)/324/148/149, P.P.C. For causing injuries to First Informant Rehmatullah, his grandson Qaisar Naseer, Muhammad Nawaz and Mst. Hajran Bibi.
2. The brief facts of the case as given in the F.I.R. Bearing No,128 of 1993, Police Station Philora, Tehsil Pasroor, District Sheikhupura, registered at instance of Rehmatullah are that on 8-8-1993 in the evening the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 7 while armed with Dangs and Chhuri in furtherance of their common intention to commit murdererous assault attacked the First Informant Rehamtullah and Qaisar Naseer. The respondents entered the house of the complainant while chasing him and launched an attack which resulted in injuries to Muhammad Nawaz, Qaisar Naseer, the First Informant Rehmatullah and Mst. Hajran Bibi. The motive given for the assault was that the niece of Mst. Hajran Bibi was married to Zulfiqar Ali respondent No,3 who later on got divorce from her husband, and it was considered by respondents No,3 and his father Muhammad Akram that Mst.
Hajran and Rehmatullah were instrumental in getting the said divorce. The prosecution examined two eyewitnesses, namely, Muhammad Nawaz and Mst. Hajran Bibi, both injured as P.W.1 and P.W.2.
The said witnesses did not support the prosecution version and stated that they knew nothing about the occurrence. The witnesses were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor.
It was denied by Muhammad Nawaz that they had compromised with the accused and further stated that the case against the respondents is false and wrong.
3. An application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved by respondents Nos.1 to 7 to seek their acquittal on the ground that the two witnesses had not supported the prosecution version.
Magistrate section 30 Pasroor vide his judgment dated 17-1-1995 accepted the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. On the ground that the witnesses did not support the prosecution version and consequently for the reasons given in the said order the respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 337-A(ii)/324/148/149, P.P.C.
4. Respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed the present appeal on 4-9-1995. Respondent No,5 died during the pendency of the appeal and it was ordered that his name should be deleted from the array of the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the appeal submitted that the learned trial Court acted with under haste by accepting the application of the respondents under section 249- A, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court should have examined Rehmatullah and Qaisar Naseer, his grandson because they were also injured. Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.1) was stated to be the brother of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and uncle of respondent No,3 and Mst. Hajran Bibi was stated to be wife of Muhammad Nawaz. It was because of this close relationship with the respondents that these two witnesses did not support the prosecution version. It was contended that throwing the prosecution case without the examination of two other injured witnesses amounted to stifling of the prosecution version which was contrary to the constant view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the prosecution should be given the full chance of establishing its case.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appeal was filed on 4-9-1995 and section 417, Cr.P.C. Was amended on 14-11-1994 by the Amended Act No,XX of 1994 whereby the right of appeal to the person who is aggrieved by the order of acquittal was conferred to file the appeal within thirty days from the said order of acquittal to the High Court. The argument was taken to its logical conclusion by contending that on the date when the order of acquittal was passed i.e, 17-1-1995 the Amended Provision of Law viz section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Was part of the Statute Book. Instead of filing the appeal the appellant filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sialkot which was returned to them on 6th August, 1995 as being incompetent, due to the amendment in section 417, Cr.P.C. Whereby section 2-A was added.
7. In reply to this agreement learned counsel for the appellant contended that this is merely a technicality and the same should be brushed aside substantial justice should be dispensed especially when the judgment of the court acquitting the accused is perverse. Additionally it was stated that the appellant was not aware of the newly added provisions of law and were diligently pursuing the remedy in another Court.
8. I am afraid the explanation given by the learned counsel for the appellant for filling the appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation is not convincing. The petitioner has not acted in a bonafide manner or with due diligence in prosecuting remedies in wrong forum. This has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court and is supported from the following dictums reported in "Muhammad Ishaq v. Province of the Punjab, (1998 SCM R 9). In this case the Chief Administrator Auqaf took over and assumed administrative control and management of Waqaf property. The plaintiff instead of filing a petition before the District Judge as required under the law filed a civil suit which was returned to him for lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter,. 'a petition was moved before the District Judge contending that the property was not waqf, the same was dismissed as being barred by time. This Court affirmed the finding of the District Judge. In petition for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court held that prosecuting remedies before wrong forum hardly amounted to a bonafide mistake and did not constitute due diligence the essential requirement of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Similarly in another case titled Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar (PLD 1977 SC 102). It was held that defence given by a lawyer that remedy in a wrong Court was prosecuted, is not a good ground for exclusion of time for limitation either under section 5 or section 14 of Limitation Act, 1908. In the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ali Khan and others (1975 SCM R 259). It was held that failure to acquaint himself with relevant provisions of law relating to jurisdiction of Court--Amounted to negligence on part of counsel and hence the delay was not condoned. Messrs Asmat v. Sheikh Shaukat Ali (1974 SCM R 158) was also to the same effect.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn my attention to any authority in the filed of criminal law whereby appeal not filed in time, the delay was condoned on the ground that in order to do substantial justice, consideration of limitation should be brushed aside. The plea of the appellant that he was ignorant about the addition of section 417(2-A) is hardly a ground even to advert. Ignorance of law has never been considered as a defence and consequently can never be condoned. By allowing the period of limitation to lapse, the respondent has been clothed with at least an expectancy that further prosecution has come to an end. Such right cannot withdrawn from them without strong reasons. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the technicalities have to be brushed aside in order to do substantial justice is not a very apt argument in this case. The question of limitation is not a technicality. It is a penal statute which is to be construed strictly but once a right flows from it same cannot be withdrawn unless very strong and sufficient reasons are advanced. As stated earlier I have not been shown any law whereby the preponderance of view on this subject learned in favour of the appellant.
9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal has no merit and consequently the same is dismissed.