Find a Lawyer

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.30 of 1984, decided February, 1987.

---S.185-F--Limitation, reckoning of--True copy of judgment furnished to the Customs Authorities on the very day of request yet appeal not filed within time limit of 60 days as laid down in S.185-F of Customs Act--the most one day's concession, held, could be given to State in circumstances--Appeal filed beyond a period of 60 days even after giving concession of one day was patently jarred by time--Appeal dismissed.

Muzaffar Hassan for Appellant.

Aziz Ullah K.Shaikh for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1987.

This appeal had come up before me on 29-1-1987, when the learned counsel for the respondents/acquitted-accused raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by time. Mr. Muzaffar Hassan, learned counsel for the State, wanted some time obtain instructions and to study the question of limitation. The case was adjourned for today and in view of the fact that the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 7-6-1984 of the learned Special Judge did not bear the usual stamp and information as to when the application for certified copy was made, when the copy was prepared and when it was supplied, it was considered necessary by the Court require the Serishtedar of the learned Special Judge to be present person in this Court. Shamim Ahmad Siddiqui Serishtedar of the learned Special Judge of Customs, is present. He states that in every case, where an application is made for a certified copy, the usual rubber stamp is affixed and necessary information is incorporated as to the date of the application for certified copy, the date, when the copy is prepared and the date when the certified copy is supplied to the applicant, but previously and now also true copies are being supplied to the Customs when some officer of the Customs for the purposes of adjudication, requests for such a copy and in such cases the copy is supplied on the same day with an endorsement that it is a true copy and in such case are usual stamp, which is affixed giving information about the date of application, date when the copy was prepared and the date when the certified copy was supplied, is not affixed. In the instant case, a similar true copy of the memo of appeal was filed with the memo of appeal. The Serishtedar of the learned Special Judge states that a copy was required by the Customs and on the oral request of the Customs it was supplied on the same day i. e. 12-6-1984.

According to section 185E of the Customs Act, 1969, any person including the Federal Government aggrieved by any order passed or decision made by a Special Judge may within 60 days from the date of the order or decision, prefer an appeal or revision to the Special Appellate Court. In the present case, the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Special Judge on 7-6-1984 and the appeal was filed by the State on 12-8-1984. At the most one day's concession can be given to the State for the day, on which request was made p and a copy had been obtained i.e.12-6-1984. The appeal is patently barred by time. As such Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.30 of 1984 is dismissed as barred by time.

A copy of this order may be sent to the learned Special Judge. In future, if any one approaches the learned Special Judge for a copy, an application in writing should be obtained and the copy should only be supplied in accordance with rules.

S. G. D./S-43/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.