The judgment in Buhari @ Kichan Buhari's case is overruled, affirming that the limitation period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned beyond specified limits.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer in Crl.A.No.1224/2024: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to set aside the order passed by the Learned Special Judge for NIA Cases (Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases), Ponnamallee in Crl.M.P.No.1565 of 2023 dated 20.10.2023.

Prayer in Crl.A.No.1225/2024: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to set aside the order passed by the Learned Special Judge for NIA Cases (Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases), Ponnamallee in Crl.M.P.No.1566 of 2023 dated 20.10.2023.

Under assail in the present criminal appeals are the order dated 20th October, 2023 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1565 and 1566 of 2023 in RC.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI.

I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The bail order was passed in favour of accused persons A15 and A18 respectively based on the order passed by this Court in the case of Barakathullah vs. National Investigation Agency, CRL.A.Nos.98, 114 and 116 of 2023, dated 19.10.2023. The said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the National Investigation Agency and by judgment dated 22.05.2024 in CRL.A.Nos.2715 to 2719 of 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of this Court dated 19.10.2023. As such, the order on the basis which the Trial Court has granted bail to the accused persons A15 and A18 herein were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently. Thus, it necessitate the National Investigation Agency to prefer the present appeals with a delay. The reasons are stated to condone the delay in filing the criminal appeals falls beyond the control of the National Investigation Agency and therefore, the delay is to be condoned.

II. BACKGROUND ON THE CRIMINAL APPEALS FILED:

3. The appellant is the Union of India represented by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Chennai. The respondents are the accused persons A15 and A18. The respondents filed bail petitions under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 43D of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred as 'UA(P) Act']. The bail petitions were allowed on conditions. Aggrieved by the bail order, the National Investigation Agency preferred these criminal appeals under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred as 'NIA Act']. The appeals are numbered subject to maintainability, since there is a delay in filing the criminal appeals by the appellant.

4. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, mainly on the ground that the limitation as prescribed under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is applicable to the prosecution side and the present appeals filed beyond the period of limitation is not maintainable.

III. LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR APPEALS UNDER SECTION 21(5) OF THE NIA ACT AND THE ISSUES RAISED:

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that with reference to preferring an appeal under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, the delay in filing an appeal was condoned by this Court, if the appeal is preferred by an accused person. However, appeals filed by the prosecution is dismissed on the ground of delay, in view of ratio laid down in the case of Buhari @ Kichan Buhari vs. State Represented by the Additional De