IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. S- 30 of 2024.

Appellant:                               Gul Hassan, through Mr. Gul Sher Junejo, Advocate.

Respondents No.1 to 3:           Nemo.

Respondent No.4:                   The State, through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Date of Hearing:                     16.05.2024.

Date of Order:                                    16.05.2024.

Date of Reasons:                    17.05.2024.

Judgment

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J-.    Through instant criminal acquittal appeal, the appellant/ complainant Gul Hassan son of Wali Muhammad Sasoli Brohi has impugned the Order dated 19.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions     Judge-II, Shahdadkot, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 2023, whereby he has acquitted accused/ respondents No.1 to 3, by allowing their application filed under Section     265- K Cr.P.C. 

            2.         Learned counsel for the applicant contends that learned trial Court did not give opportunity to the complainant/ appellant to record his evidence as well as evidence of his witnesses in order to prove the case against accused/ respondents No.1 to 3, and acquitted them before framing of the charge; that prima-facie the alleged offenses are made out from contents of the direct complaint and that there was no ground available to the accused / respondents No.1 to 3, for invoking provisions of Section 265-K Cr.P.C., therefore, the case may be remanded back to learned trial Court for recording evidence of prosecution-witnesses and its decision afresh.

            3.         Heard learned counsel for the appellant, as well as learned D.P.G. and perused the material available on record.

            4.         It appears from the record, that the impugned order of acquittal was passed on 19.02.2024, whereas the appeal was presented before this Court on 29.03.2024 with the delay of 10-days from the period as provided by law for filing appeal. It further appears that the appellant applied for certified true copy of the impugned Order on 19.02.2024 and the certified copy of the impugned Order was delivered to him on 24.02.2024, even then he filed appeal before this Court on 29.03.2024, again after lapse of 05-days of issuance of certified true copy and for such delay the appellant’s counsel has not said a single word. The appeal is obviously time-barred. It is well settled law that in order to get the delay condoned, each day’s delay is to be explained.  But, in the instant matter, neither any application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, nor any explanation or any cogent reason has been furnished for filing appeal with delay.

            5.         The right of appeal is a very valuable right and the delay of each day in filing the appeal against acquittal is required to be specifically explained by the appellant.  Since, the delay in filing the appeal under Section 417 (2) Cr.P.C beyond the statutory period of limitation against the acquittal of the respondents has not been satisfactory explained, the appeal on this ground alone is liable to be dismissed.

            6.         However, from a careful perusal of impugned judgment and other material, it is found that observations of the trial Court on very material points seems to be proper and it has properly commented on all aspects of the case. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that case of the accused persons was fit to be dealt under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that after earning the acquittal from the trial Court, double presumption of innocence is acquired by an accused.

            7.          In view of all the above factors, the instant acquittal appeal does not seem to have any merit as such it was dismissed vide short order dated 16.05.2024, and these are the reasons for the  short order.

                                                Judge

Ansari