LHC rules delay in appeals not justified by filing in wrong forum

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that delays in appeals against convictions can only be excused when a sufficient and reasonable cause is demonstrated. Relying on the incorrect forum does not meet the legal requirements for delay condonation.

The ruling came during the hearing of a case where a convict had filed an appeal against his conviction in the district court, ignoring the requirement that such appeals, under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (amended in 2015), should be filed directly with the LHC.

The key legal question before the court was whether the appellant’s decision to file his appeal in the wrong forum, which led to its dismissal, could justify the filing of a fresh appeal at the LHC beyond the statutory limitation period.

The convict, Zainul Abideen, was sentenced on May 15, 2017, by a magistrate in Lahore. However, instead of approaching the LHC, as mandated by Section 45-A of the Act of 2011, he filed an appeal in the Sessions Court on May 22, 2017. This forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the said Act.

The appeal remained pending in the Sessions Court for around seven months and was ultimately dismissed on December 21, 2017, for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant then filed a fresh appeal at the LHC on January 19, 2018, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to condone the delay in filing his appeal.

Justice Abher Gul Khan, who was hearing the case, noted that the appellant had failed to challenge or seek to set aside the judgment passed by the additional sessions judge, which dismissed his earlier appeal. This lack of challenge left the earlier dismissal order intact, which could have implications for the present appeal's maintainability.

The judge further observed that during the seven-month period when the appeal was pending in the sessions court, neither the appellant nor his legal counsel addressed the critical legal issue of the forum's lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they passively awaited a favourable outcome. It was only after the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that they chose to file the current appeal before the LHC.

Justice Khan emphasised that while the court often exercises discretion in condoning delays, it is not automatic. The court would not routinely condone delays unless the appellant could provide valid and convincing reasons. The judge highlighted that such condonation cannot be treated as a mechanical rule to apply in every case.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Punjab Food Authority, alleging offenses under Sections 22-A and 24-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011.

The judicial magistrate took cognisance of the case and summoned the appellant. After trial, the magistrate found Zain guilty of an offence under Section 24-A of the Act, sentencing him to one month’s imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs100,000.

Since the sentence was less than one year, the magistrate exercised discretion under Section 382-A of the CrPC and postponed the execution of the sentence to allow the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal, contingent upon him furnishing bail bonds of Rs200,000.