Does S 21 of the NIA Act exclude the application of S 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act for determining the limitation period for filing an appeal under the NIA Act?

  The point that arises for determination is, whether NIA Act, in particular Section 21 whereof expressly excludes the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act for determining the period of limitation for filing an appeal under NIA Act. One view is that by providing for condonation of delay after the expiry of 30 days‟ period prescribed for filing appeal, but not beyond 90 days from the date of judgment, sentence or order appealed from, the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded. The other view is that exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 must be express and not by necessary implication. We are, however, inclined to go by the later view. This is because Section 21 of the NIA Act has no where specifically excluded the application of Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) for determining the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeal under Section 21 of the Act. There is, of course, similar provision in first proviso to Section 21(5) which gives discretion to the High Court to entertain an entertain an appeal after expiry of period of limitation of 30 days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within a period of 30 days. However, second proviso to Section 21(5) of the Act ordains that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of 90 days. {Para 19}

20 Having regard to the object of the NIA Act and the right of the accused to fair trial, the word “shall” used in second proviso to Section 21(5) of the Act deserves to be read as “may”, else the right of appeal given to the accused against his conviction would become a causality if the doors of the Appellate Court are shut to him on the ground of limitation. The right to fair trial is a right vested in the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right of appeal, wherever it is provided, is a matter of substance and essentially a remedial right. If this remedy is put in jeopardy by creating bar of limitation and leaving no discretion in the Court to condone the delay even in well deserving cases, it would render the remedy otiose. We, therefore, cannot put any construction or interpretation on a provision that has the effect of taking away the fair trial right of the accused. It is in this context, we must hold that right of the accused to avail the remedy of appeal is a substantive and concomitant right of fair trial. This is in this background, the Delhi High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh vs. State (National Investigation Agency), 2019(7) AD (Delhi) 233, has taken the view that the word “shall” used in second proviso to Section 21(5) shall be read as “may” and that the second proviso is directory in nature. The Court further observed that the High Court shall have the discretion to condone the delay in appropriate cases even after expiry of period of 90 days. The Delhi High Court rightly did not agree to lift and apply decisions based on the interpretation of civil provisions, rendered in the context of civil and taxing statutes.

35 We have already held that the provisions of second proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 21 of the Act are directory in nature and, therefore, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

CrlA(D) No. 46/2022 ,CrlM No. 1474/2022

National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

Author: Sanjeev Kumar, J.

Pronounced on 13..12.2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page