Mushtaq Ahmed vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 668 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mushtaq Ahmed VS State S. 462-E---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 3 & 5 & First Sched., Art. 157--- Gas theft---Acquittal of the accused---Appeal against acquittal, filing of---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---Appeal against acquittal barred by 27 days---Held: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were to be treated as special law and not general law, for the purpose of Limitation Act, 1908---Provisions contained in Ss.4, 9 to 18 and 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as prescribed by clause (a) of subsection (2) of S.29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to special law, however, S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for not finding mention in S.29 ibid. shall not be applicable in that regard, as clause (b) of subsection (2) of S.29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, provides that all the remaining provisions of that Act shall not apply---Subsection (2-A) of S.417, Cr.P.C ordains that "A person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court may, within thirty days file an appeal against such order"---Said period of thirty days, would run from the date of passing of the order of acquittal and not from the date of knowledge---Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the instant appeal had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation reckoned from the date of knowledge, i.e. 11.03.2022, was not tenable---For the other contention of the appellant that Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited was a government department, it might be observed that Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) was incorporated as aprivate limited company and then converted into a public limited company under the Companies Act, 2017---Persons forming aprivate company were the "legal persons" who had established the legal entities through a law, such as public companies, private companies, limited liability partnerships, associations etc., registered under the Companies Act, 2017---Thus, it could safely be inferred that "a company" was "a person" created by law, which could sue and be sued except that it could not be jailed or hanged, so it came within the meaning of "A person" as given in subsection (2-A) of S.417, Cr.P.C.---Therefore, due to the bar contained in clauses (a) & (b) of subsection (2) of S.29 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and there being the special limitation of thirty days prescribed by the said statue, the provisions of S.5 and Art.157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, had lost their applicability or relevancy over the matter in hand---Lapse of time in a criminal matter is sufficient to provide protection to a person, who has been acquitted, against further judicial process by way of filing of an appeal against his acquittal---Thus, the provision of condonation of delay under S.5 and Art.157 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not available for filing of an appeal against acquittal---Hence, petition for condonation of delay was rejected and the instant appeal was dismissed being barred by time.

Mushtaq Ahmed vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 668 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ