Mrs. Justice Erum Sajad Gull in her judgment has decided the issue regarding late institution of Crl. P.S.L.A. and application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act in Criminal Petition Seeking Leave to Appeal No. 59 of 2015.
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) for condonation of delay in filing the afore titled Crl. P.S.L.A. against the judgment dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali whereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were acquitted in the complaint filed by the petitioner under sections 302, 148 and 149 PPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he applied for the copy of the judgment on 17.11.2011 and the said copy was delivered to him on 23.12.2011; that the Crl. P.S.L.A could not be filed due to the winter vacations of this Court and the petition of the petitioner was returned; that then on 07.01.2012 that is the first working day of this court after winter vacations, the petitioner filed the afore titled Crl.P.S.LA which is within the stipulated period of limitation; that the delay in filing of the afore titled Crl. P.S.L.A. was neither intentional nor willful and prayed that the delay if any may be condoned.
3. Section 5 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) for condonation of delay is not applicable to section 417 of The Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) as clearly laid down under section 29 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) which is reproduced as under:
Section 29 of The Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Saving:-
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Contract Act,1872.
(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the First Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that Schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law:
(a) the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18, and section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and
(b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply.”
4. Hence it is clear that if there is a special provision of limitation provided under the relevant law then section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1908 will not be applicable for condoning the delay. Reliance is placed upon the “Muhammad Sharif and others versus The State and others” (2005 MLD 1333).
5. In the case in hand no plausible reason has been given as to why the petitioner failed to file the afore titled Crl. P.S.L.A. within the limitation prescribed under section 417 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan refused to grant leave in “Qamar uz Zaman and another versus Haji Allah Bakhsh and another”(2012 SCMR 1281) and held that “Although an application for condonation of the delay was filed by the petitioner but no good ground was urged therein, explaining as to why it was filed beyond the period of limitation before the High Court, as such the learned High Court proceeded to dismiss his application being barred by time, to which no exception can be taken in the present proceedings. Therefore, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Leave declined.”
Further information regarding late institution of Crl. P.S.L.A. and application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.