IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the 90-day limit for filing appeals under the National Investigation Agency Act is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the appeal not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2008) is directed against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1072 of 2023 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in connection with Barora P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

2. The instant case has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ with the office note that the case is barred by limitation since the same has been filed after maximum statutory period of 90 days.

3. 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.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contested the said office note.

5. It requires to refer herein that as per the appellant also, Section 21(5) of the Act, 2008 is not applicable, rather, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be applicable. But, even in support of the said contention of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, no interlocutory application has been filed.

6. Even, no affidavit has been filed contesting the aforesaid office objection. But, since the said office note has been contested, therefore, it is the bounden duty of the Court to decide the said objection.

7. The contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant 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.

8. As per his argument also, the requirement to file delay condonation application is there but no interlocutory application has been filed even knowing the fact that the appeal has been filed after delay of 90 days.

9. Ms. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has seriously objected the aforesaid submission by taking aid of the 2nd proviso of Section 21(5) of the Act, 2008, which cannot be said to be directory in view of the specific stipulation made therein.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf.

11. It is relevant to refer herein that this Court is hearing an appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the Act, 2008 against the order passed by the learned Court rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with “scheduled offences.”

12. The question herein as has been pointed out by contesting the office note that the appeal is also to be filed beyond the period of 90 days, since, Section 21(5) cannot be said to be mandatory, rather, it is directory.

13. But the question herein would be that:

“whether the appellate court has got power to interpret the statutory mandate as is being sought for on behalf of the appellant.”

14. The law is well settled that the appellate court is having no power to interpret the law, rather, the appellate court is to proceed strictly in adherence to the statutory mandate on the principle that when a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other manner, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 358, wherein at paragraph 8 it has been held as under:

“....its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the