' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---This single order shall dispose of two Cr.M. Nos. 101 of 2000 and 102 of 2000 in two appeals, Cr Appeal No,66 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No, 67 of 1999 respectively.
2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge acting as Judge Special Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life on a charge of murder vide judgment dated 19-10-1999 against which Criminal Appeal No, 66 of 1999 has been filed and was also convicted and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. Against which Criminal Appeal No, 67 of 1999 has been filed. At the time of filing of appeals the petitioner has also filed applications in each appeal for the fixation of case within 3 months as per provisions of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. This Court while unfitting the appeals for regular hearing on 1-12-1999 held: "This is an application filed by the appellant for the disposal of appeal within three months as per provisions of Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Let this appeal be fixed on its own turn within the category of cases to which it pertains and if possible may be within three months."
' The petitioner now has moved the aforesaid applications for his release on bail on the ground that his appeal was not fixed for hearing within statutory prescribed period Of 3 months and also in accordance of the order of this Court dated 1-12-]999. In this respect reliance was placed on Nadeem Umar v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 606 and Tahiruddin v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 394.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the applications by contending that the provision of section 426, Cr.P.C. Has been excluded by the Act of 1975 and the delay of a few months in disposal of the appeal by itself furnishes no ground for the release of the convict who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and in this respect reference was made to The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah 1992 SCM R 2192 and Pervez Akhtar v. Muhammad Inayat 1995 SCM R 929.
4. In view of the volume of work and Single Division Bench functioning at the Circuit Bench an appropriate order has been passed on 1-12-1999 quoted above. The exclusion of provisions of section 426, Cr.P.C. Apart, the non-disposal of appeal filed against a sentence of imprisonment for life within months shall not entitle the appellant to the suspension of his sentence and his release on bail. In case Nadeem Umar (supra) the appellant was arrested on 10-9-1990 and was convicted on 19-8-1996 against which the appeal was filed on 14-9-1996 and despite the lapse of more than 21 months till July, 1998 the appeal was not decided and it was not certain "how much more time would be required to hear it and dispose of..." While in the case of Tahiruddin (supra) the appeal was admitted in 1995 but till May, 1997 the same was not decided. Hence the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable and not applicable to the case whereas in present case the appeal was filed on 17-11-1999 against the impugned judgment of conviction delivered on 19-10-1999 in a case registered on 12-12-1992 and the petitioner was arrested on 10-3-1997.
5. In the case of Parvez Akhtar the Humble Supreme Court set aside the order of suspension of sentence of the convict in a case registered under section 435, P.P.C. With a punishment of 5 years and reliance was placed on Syed Qaim Ali Shah's case in which while dealing with the delay of appeal for years it was observed: "... The High Court in case of above nature may press into service section 561-A, Cr.P.C., but not as a matter of course or as a substitute to section 426, Cr.P.C. The delay should be of the nature which may be repulsive and unconscionable."
In the light of aforesaid discussion we see no force in these applications and the same are dismissed.