Delay in filing appeals under NIA Act cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday ruled that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act of 2008 (NIA Act) beyond 90 days cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [Sheikh Rahamtulla @ Sajid @ Burhan Sheikh @ Surot Ali & Ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency].Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the provisions regarding limitation under the second proviso to Section 21(5) of the NIA Act are plain, clear, and unambiguous in prohibiting the entertainment of any appeal after the expiry of 90 days..The Court further opined that reading Section 5 of the Limitation Act into the second proviso to Section 21(5), NIA Act would do violence to the plain meaning of this provision..Hence, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be read into the second proviso Section 21 (5) of the NIA Act, the Court held. Such substitution would render the entirety of the 2nd proviso otiose and superfluous, the bench added..“An appeal sought to be filed after expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the judgement or order or sentence, under Section 21 of the Act of 2008 cannot be entertained,” the Court, therefore, held..The Court also noted that the prescription of such a limitation period is in sync with the object of the NIA Act, 2008, “which is to have an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India.”.In view of such objects, the NIA Act has waived the applicability of several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as well, to facilitate effective trial and disposal of the cases governed by it expeditiously, the Court observed further..The Court, therefore, dismissed an appeal filed by men convicted by a Sessions Court in 2019 in a bomb explosion case that was probed by the NIA. Pertinently, their appeal had been filed beyond the limitation period spelt out in Section 21(5) of the NIA Act..Section 21(5) lays down that in NIA cases, appeals should ordinarily be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment sought to be challenged. The first proviso to Section 21(5) enables the filing of an appeal beyond 30 days if the High Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing an appeal within 30 days. The second proviso lays down that an appeal, in any case, cannot be filed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the judgment..The appellants had contended that the NIA Act does not oust the applicability of the Limitation Act. As such, they requested that the delay in filing their appeal beyond 90 days to be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 (extension of prescribed period in certain cases) of the Limitation Act, 1963..The High Court noted that the opinion on this aspect has been divided across High Courts..The Kerala High Court in Nasir Ahammed v. National Investigation Agency (2015) had held that the 90-day limitation period in Section 21(5), NIA Act is mandatory. .On the other hand, a contrary view was taken by the High Courts of Delhi (in its 2019 judgment in Farhan Shaikh v. State) and Jammu and Kashmir (in its 2022 judgment in NIA v. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu). In these two cases, the Courts had held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be applied to the NIA Act and, therefore, an appeal filed beyond the 90 days stipulated in Section 21(5) could be entertained..With today’s ruling, the Calcutta High Court concurred with the Kerala High Court’s view on the issue, after noting that Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is clearly worded, leaving no room to read the application of Section 5 of Limitation Act into the said provision..“The intention of the legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. Where the words of the statute are clear, plain or unambiguous the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is wrong and dangerous to substitute some other words for the words of the statute. The rules of interpretation do not permit Courts to add words unless the section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning,” the Court said..The appellants’ plea was, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable..Advocates Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Mukesh Khanna, and Syed Neaz Ahmed appeared for the appellants. Advocates Bhashar Prosad Banerjee, and Prashan Baidya appeared for the NIA..[Read Judgment]