IMPORTANT POINT
The provision in Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, mandating a 90-day limit for filing appeals is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the appeal not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellants has requested to argue this case through online mode.

2. Accordingly, request, as has been sought for, is accepted and he has joined through Video Conferencing.

3. While, learned counsel for the respondents are present (physically) before the Court.

4. There is no complaint regarding audio and video quality.

5. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2008) is directed against the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XVI-Cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03 of 2018, corresponding to R.C. No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018 registered for the offence under section 414, 384, 386, 387 &120B of the Indian Penal Code, under sections 25(1B) a, 26, & 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17(1) (2) of the CLA Act and sections 17,18, 20 and 21 of U.A. (P) Act arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case no. 02 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, an application filed under section 25(6) of the UA (P) Act in respect of the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 74 of 2020, has been rejected.

6. The instant case has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ with the office note dated 08.01.2024 that the instant case is not maintainable which is barred by limitation since the same has been filed after expiry of maximum statutory period of 90 days.

7. The reason for pointing out such defect is that the provision as contained under Section 21(5) of the Act, 2008 which provides the period of limitation to prefer an appeal if filed under Section 21(4) of the Act, 2008, as per which, the requirement to file an appeal is the maximum period of 90 days.

8. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case by contesting the said office note that Section 21(5) of the Act, 2008 cannot be said to be mandatory in nature rather it is directory/obligatory, in view of the fact that in the first proviso of Section 21(5), the word ‘may’ have been inserted which confers power upon the appellate court, i.e., the High Court to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days.

9. As per his argument also, the requirement to file delay condonation application is there and as such, interlocutory application has been filed even knowing the fact that the appeal has been filed after delay of 90 days.

10. To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib vs. State of Maharashtra and Another passed in Cr. Appeal (Stamp) No. 11931 of 2022 and Delhi High Court in the case of Farhan Shaikh vs. State (National Investigation Agency), 2019 SCC Online Del 9158.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIA has seriously contested the case by taking aid of the provision of Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the National Investigation Agency has pointed out that the instant appeal is not maintainable in view of the office note dated 08.01.2024 on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the maximum period of 90 days under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

13. It has further been pointed on behalf of the NIA that issue of filing an appeal within a period of 90 days have been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1961 of 2023 holding therein the nature of Section 21(5) of having maximum period of 90 days to file an appeal, has been held to be mandatory and as such the instant appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said order holding the instant appeal to be not maintainable.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIA has also put his reliance upon the judgments passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Nasir Ahammed vs. National Investigation Agency, 2015 SCC Online