1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- The appellant/complainant Haji Khan Khohro being aggrieved by the judgment, dated 21st April, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat in Special Case No,244 of 1991 (New No,104 of 1993) whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused 1 and 2 under section 265(H)(I), Cr.P.C. Has preferred the present appeal. The case arose out of F.I.R. No,31 of 1991 of Police Station Gambat.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Somro, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/complainant and perused the material placed on record, which shows that the impugned judgment was pronounced by the trial Court on 21-4-2000 whereby the respondents/accused Muhammad Shareef and Ali Gohar were acquitted. The appellant applied for the certified true copy of the judgment on 21-4-2000. He supplied stamp on 29-4-2000 and on the same date the copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellant. The period of limitation for filing appeal provided under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. As well as under section 7 of the S.T.A. Act, 1975 is 30 days. Whereas the present appeal has been preferred beyond the period of limitation. No explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay has been given in the memo. Of appeal or by way of separate application, It is well-settled that delay of each day is to be explained. The limitation creates valuable rights in favour of the party, whosoever sleeps over his right cannot claim the relief beyond the period of limitation.
3. ' The trial was conducted and acquittal was passed by Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 is a special law which overrides the general law. Under section 7 of the S.T. Act, 1975 appeal against acquittal could be filed by a person appointed by Provincial Government. In the case in hand no appeal has been filed by any person appointed/nominated by the Provincial Government. Section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Cannot be equated with section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Act, 1975. Consequently the appeal is not maintainable under law. Dismissed alongwith listed applications.