Appeals Filed Beyond 90 Days Under NIA Act Impermissible; Limitation Act Inapplicable: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held 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, observing that courts cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period fixed by the special statute. The Court clarified that the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to extend the limitation period beyond the statutory cap under the NIA Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan was dealing with a preliminary objection raised by the Registry regarding the maintainability of a criminal appeal that had been filed after expiry of the maximum statutory period of 90 days under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act.

Submissions of the Parties:

The appellant contended that the bar contained in Section 21(5) of the NIA Act was not mandatory but directory, arguing that the High Court retained the power to condone delay beyond 90 days by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was submitted that the use of the word “may” in the first proviso to Section 21(5) indicates that the Court has discretion to entertain delayed appeals. The appellant relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Farhan Shaikh v State (NIA) and a ruling of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu v Addl. Sessions Judge, District Court, Jammu, where it was held that the NIA Act does not expressly exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act.

The appellant also referred to orders of the Supreme Court of India in Sushila Devi v Union of India through NIA, submitting that the Supreme Court had permitted the High Court to decide the matter on merits notwithstanding delay. However, the High Court observed that the orders of the Supreme Court did not decide the legal question regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act or the interpretation of Section 21(5) of the NIA Act.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the issue had already been examined by a coordinate bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Vimal Kumar Paswan @ Vimal Paswan v State of Jharkhand, where the Court had considered the judgments of various High Courts, including the Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir High Courts, and concluded that appeals filed beyond the statutory maximum period under Section 21(5) are not maintainable.

The Court's Reasoning:

The Court noted that Section 21(5) of the NIA Act prescribes a 30-day limitation period for filing appeals, with a limited power to condone delay under the first proviso if sufficient cause is shown. However, the second proviso creates a negative bar, stating that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of 90 days. Holding that the statutory scheme leaves no room for condoning delay beyond the outer limit, the Court observed:

“At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that though in the case of Vimal Kumar Paswan @ Vimal Paswan (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already held that any appeal filed beyond the maximum period of 90 days is not maintainable, yet, in order to further deliberate the issue we deem it proper to refer few more judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in order to demonstrate that when a statutory period of limitation is prescribed under the Act and even within the extended maximum period, the delay could be condoned by the Statutes itself, no Court shall condone the delay beyond the maximum period of limitation.”

Accordingly, the Court sustained the Registry's objection and held that an appeal filed beyond the maximum statutory period of 90 days under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is not maintainable, and the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend the period further.

Case Title: Amar Yasar v State of Jharkhand.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) (Filing) No. 26650 of 2025

Appearance: Md. Mokhtar Khan appeared for the Appellant. Ms. Priya Shrestha appeared for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order