JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Whether delay in filing of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 beyond 90 days can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the issue which has fallen for consideration in the present proceedings.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated August 28, 2019 the Learned Chief Judge, City Session Court had convicted the appellants under Sections 120B/125/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 16/17/18/18A/18B/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and under Section 12 (1) (b)/12 (1A) of the Passport Act, 1967.

3. A police complaint had been lodged on October 2, 2014 in respect of a bomb explosion. The investigation of such police case had been handed over to the CID, West Bengal. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had transferred the investigation of such police case from CID, West Bengal to the National Investigation Agency invoking Section 6 (5) of the Act of 2008. The appellants had been convicted by the learned trial judge in such police case.

4. It has not been disputed on behalf of the parties that, an appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence would be governed by the provisions of the Act of 2008 particularly Section 21 thereof.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to the provisions of the Act of 2008 and the Limitation Act, 1963. He has submitted that, the provisions of the Act of 2008 do not oust the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. He has submitted that, the Calcutta High Court in 2016 SCC Online Cal 4483 (Sadanala Ramkrishna and others versus National Investigation Agency) recognised the applicability of Section 12 (3) of the Limitation Act, 1963 to an appeal filed under Section 21 of the Act of 2008. Therefore, on a parity of such reasoning Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has application in respect of consideration of condonation of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Act of 2008.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the Delhi High Court in 2019 SCC Online Del 9158 (Farhan Shaikh versus State (National Investigation Agency)) held that an application for condonation of delay is maintainable in an appeal governed by the Act of 2008. It has held that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be excluded as it would lead to travesty of justice if the substantive appeal was not heard on merits and rejected at the threshold only on account of bar of limitation prescribed under Section 21 (5) of the Act of 2008.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the view of the Delhi High Court has been accepted and followed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in GLA (D) No. 46 of 2022 GLM No. 1474 0f 2022 (National Investigation Agency versus 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu).

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the right of appeal is a substantive right. The same should not be curtailed so as to deny the appellant the unfettered right of appeal to agitate the grievances of the appellant. In the facts of the present case, the appellant had been prevented by economic reasons from preferring the appeal within the prescribed time of limitation provided under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2008. He has contended that, since provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are attracted to an appeal under Section 21 of the Act of 2008, the Court should be pleased to condone the delay and admit the appeal and hear the appeal on merits. The appellants have substantial grounds to urge in the appeal if the same is heard on merits.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the National Investigation Agency has submitted that, an appeal governed by the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2008 is barred if the same is filed beyon