Bad application to section 417 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 5 preventive code (XLV of 1860), provisions 408/409/468/471/34 corruption protection act (II of 1947), section 5 (2) The delay in the ban on the appeal was condoned, the dismissal of the Department of Anti-Corruption (Appellant) claiming that the delay in filing the current appeal against Baret was due to the late instruction issued by the concerned department in which it It is an obligation to show that there is no reason beyond its control. Appeals cannot be filed within a limited period of six months. No copy of the correspondence or instructions issued by the concerned department was disclosed which stated who was responsible and the basis for not giving direction / permission in the period / period. The application for obtaining a certified copy of the six-month limitation decision was submitted more than 10 months after the date of the decision. The delay in the department was not sufficient ground for condolences on the delay due to the directions of the concerned department and it cannot be termed a compulsory situation beyond the control of the department. The present appeal against delayed dismissal was also liable to be dismissed because the evidence presented by the prosecution was too weak to support the allegation The appeal against Brett was dismissed with time constraints.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
