' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.--- This appeal has been filed before this Court by accused- appellant through Superintendent, Jail, Mirpur against the judgment passed by the Shariat Court, dated 25-5-2001, whereby while dismissing the appeal of the appellant the order recorded by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur on 23-9-2000, refusing the concession of bail to the appellant was maintained.
2. There is no need to mention in detail the facts of the case; suffice it to say that appellant is facing trial in a case under sections 302, 324, 337-A, F and 34, A.P.C. Alongwith his brother and father. He alongwith his brother and father moved a common bail application before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur on 11-5-2000. The concession of bail was extended to his brother and father who are co-accused with him, however, the same was denied to him by he said Court vide its order, dated 23 9-2000. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, the appellant filed a revision petition before the Shariat Court through which he challenged the correctness of the order of the trial Court to the extent of his bail matter whereas the complainant also filed a revision petition before the Shariat Court seeking cancellation of bail order recorded in favour of Maqsood Ahmed and Abdul Aziz, the co-accused persons in the case. Both these revision petitions were dismissed through a consolidated order recorded by a learned Judge in the Shariat Court on 25-5- 2001, however, the judgment was announced in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties on 1-6-2001 by the Deputy Registrar of the Court. The appeal of the appellant sent through Superintendent Jail, Mirpur was received in the registry office of this Court on 9-10-2001, that means after 130 days of the announcement of the judgment by the Shariat Court. Under section 25 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act, 1974, he had 60 days period for availing the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of this Court. His appeal is barred by 70 days, therefore, on this very ground the appeal is not maintainable under law. In para. 2 of his appeal the appellant has sought the extension in limitation on the ground that he was given assurance by some respectable persons that they shall effect compromise between the complainant and the accused party, as such he was advised not to file appeal before this Court. According to him as appeal has been filed by the complainant against bail order recorded in favour of his brother and father, therefore, he was obliged to file this appeal before this Court. This is no ground for the condonation of delay. Right of appeal or revision is the creation of the statute. Anybody interested in availing such remedy is obliged to observe the parameters laid down in the statute for such remedies. The appellant has not denied that he had no notice that concession of bail has been refused to him, therefore, when the order of the Court came to his notice he should have filed his appeal within next 60 days. If parties were involved in negotiations to settle the dispute even then after filing appeal the terms A for settlement of compromise could have been negotiated and settled outside the Court and in case of compromise of the parties the same would have been given effect by the Court. On such-like excuse as has been taken in the present appeal the period of limitation prescribed under law cannot be condoned.
' In view of above, it is not felt proper to enter into the merits of the case. This appeal being barred by limitation, is hereby dismissed.