1. ' This Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,54 of 2001, has been preferred by State through Advocate- General, Sindh, Karachi by challenging the acquittal of respondent namely Alam Hingorjo who has been acquitted by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Mirpurkhas by judgment, dated 18-11-2000. This appeal has been filed under section 25(4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which is reproduced as under:- "The Attorney-General (Deputy Attorney-General, Standing Counsel) or an Advocate-General (or an Advocate of the High Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan appointed as Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor) may, on being directed by the Federal or a Provincial Government, file an appeal against an order of acquittal or a sentence passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court within fifteen days of such order."
2. ' In the present case the judgment has been announced by the trial Court on 18-11-2000 whereas the appeal has been presented on 1-1-2001 viz. After a delay of 28 days which goes unexplained by the State. When asked as to how the appeal is maintainable in view of section 25(4) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, the learned counsel for State Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Qureshi placed reliance on 1999 SCMR pages 610-611 and PLD 1995 SC page 19, which both the authorities are distinguishable from the present case. Under this Statute even a delay of one day is to be explained by the State and in the present case as submitted above there is a delay of 28 days which has not been explained at all by the State although in support of criminal acquittal appeal an affidavit has been filed by one Afzal Hussain who is the clerk in the office of the Advocate-General, Sindh.
3. We are being fortified by a case The State through Additional Advocate-General, Sindh/Public Prosecutor v. Anis Bawani and 2 others reported in' 2000 PCr.LJ 1418 wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that delay would create valuable rights in favour of parties. State was also to be treated at par with ordinary citizen. Delay of each day was to be explained for condonation of delay. Period prescribed in special or local law would prevail over that of Limitation Act, 1908.
4. Provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not, in circumstances, be applicable to appeal under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in view of bar contained under section 29(2)(a)(b) of Limitation Act, 1908. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998 PCr.LJ 1418.
5. ' In view of the above legal position particularly the section 25(4) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, this criminal acquittal appeal is hopelessly time-barred and accordingly it is dismissed in limine along with the listed application.