The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that criminal appeals filed beyond the outer limit of 90 days prescribed under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 are not maintainable. The Division Bench clarified that courts have no power to condone delay beyond this statutory maximum period, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to extend the limitation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan was dealing with a preliminary objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability of Criminal Appeal (D.B.) (Filing) No. 26650 of 2025. The appeal was directed against an order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the trial court in ATS P.S. Case No.06/2025, whereby the period of investigation was extended by 60 days. The case involves offences under Sections 461(2), 113(i)(a)(iii), 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act along with Sections 25(1-b)a, 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act.
The Registry had flagged that the appeal was filed after expiry of the maximum statutory period of 90 days under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008. The matter of maintainability was referred to the Division Bench under Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the NIA Act.
Counsel for the appellant, Md. Mokhtar Khan, contended that Section 21(5) is directory and not mandatory. He submitted that the word “may” in the first proviso confers power on the High Court to condone delay beyond 90 days by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Reliance was placed on Delhi High Court judgment in Farhan Shaikh v. State (NIA) and Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruling in Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu v. Addl. Sessions Judge, District Court, Jammu. The appellant also referred to interim orders of the Supreme Court in Sushila Devi v. Union of India through NIA and Jiyaurrehman v. State of Uttarakhand, where the apex court had permitted high courts to decide matters on merits notwithstanding delay.
Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Ms. Priya Shrestha relied on the coordinate bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Vimal Kumar Paswan @ Vimal Paswan v. State of Jharkhand (Cr. App. (D.B.) No. 1961 of 2023 decided on 09.01.2024). The coordinate bench had considered judgments from Delhi, Bombay, Kerala and Calcutta High Courts and held that appeals filed beyond the maximum period of 90 days are not maintainable. The second proviso to Section 21(5) creates an absolute bar.
After examining the statutory scheme and several Supreme Court precedents including National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli, Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. Custodian, the Division Bench held that when a special statute prescribes a maximum period of limitation, courts cannot condone delay beyond that period. The Bench observed that the second proviso to Section 21(5) is a negative covenant stating that “no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days”. Courts, being creatures of statute, cannot carve out exceptions or read down the provision.
The Court clarified that it was not sitting in Article 226 jurisdiction to examine the vires of Section 21(5); rather, it was deciding the appeal on maintainability. The Bench sustained the Registry’s objection and held that the appeal, being filed beyond the maximum statutory period of 90 days, is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Amar Yasar v. State of Jharkhand through A.T.S.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) (Filing) No. 26650 of 2025
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 