2023 (3) TMI 1557 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Whether delay in filing of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 beyond 90 days can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963? - HELD THAT - Baburam Upadhyay 1960 (11) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT has considered the provisions of Section 116A (1) of the Representation of People Act 1951 and held that since the period of limitation was different from that of the Code of Civil Procedure and Representation of People Act 1951 being a special law the period of limitation prescribed in Representation of People Act 1951 shall apply. However it has held that Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1963 would apply to exclude the time taken by the appellant to obtain the certified copy of the impugned order. Hukudev Narain Yadav 1973 (12) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT has considered the issue as to whether Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act 1963 stood excluded by the provisions of the Representation of People Act 1951 or not. It has held that Court has to see whether scheme of special law nature of remedy of law show that the legislature intended to limit the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963. Even if the special law does not exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 by express reference Court has to examine whether and to what extent the provisions of nature subject matter and scheme for special law exclude their operation. The time period that has been stipulated in Section 21 of the Act of 2008 is the bone of contention in the present proceedings since the appellants are seeking to prefer an appeal which is beyond 90 days from the date of the impugned judgement and order of the Special Court. The impugned judgement and order of the Special Court is otherwise appealable in view of the same having finally disposed of the trial convicting the appellants and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment. - It has been recognised by different authorities that the doctrine of limitation is founded on considerations of public policy and expediency. Statutes of limitation do not create new obligations but only provide periods within which action must be brought to Court. The object of limitation statute is to compel litigants to be diligent in seeking remedies in Courts of law by prohibiting stale claims. The law of limitation does not destroy the primary or substantive right itself but puts an end to the accessory right of action. The judicial remedy is barred but the substantive right itself survives and continues to be available. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1963 is founded on the principle that no party can be prejudiced by an act of Court. In such context where the Court has delayed the delivery of the certified copy of its judgement or order the period taken by the Court to deliver the certified copy of its judgement or order is excluded from the calculation of the period of limitation prescribed by the statute for preferring an appeal. Conclusion - 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 period of 90 days from the date of the judgement or order or sentence has to be calculated on the principles analogous to Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1963. Application dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the delay in filing an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, beyond 90 days, can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, prescribes a period of 30 days for filing an appeal, which can be extended to 90 days if the court is satisfied with the reasons for the delay. The Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5, allows for the condonation of delays if sufficient cause is shown. However, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act specifies that Sections 4 to 24 apply only if not expressly excluded by a special law.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act could apply to appeals under Section 21 of the Act of 2008. It considered various precedents, including decisions from the Kerala, Delhi, and Jammu and Kashmir High Courts, which had differing views on the applicability of Section 5. The court noted that the words "no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days" in Section 21(5) of the Act of 2008 suggested a clear legislative intent to prohibit extensions beyond 90 days.

Key Evidence and Findings

The court analyzed previous judgments and the legislative intent behind the Act of 2008, which aims to ensure swift justice in cases affecting national security. It observed that the Act is a special statute with specific provisions for appeals, indicating that the general provisions of the Limitation Act may not apply.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing the plain and unambiguous language of the second proviso to Section 21(5). It concluded that allowing Section 5 of the Limitation Act to apply would contradict the express prohibition of appeals after 90 days.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellants argued that their right to appeal should not be curtailed and cited economic reasons for the delay. They referenced decisions from other High Courts that allowed for the condonation of delay. In contrast, the National Investigation Agency argued that the 90-day limit is mandatory, supported by the Kerala High Court's decision in Nasir Ahammed.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the delay in filing the appeal beyond 90 days could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning

"The 2nd proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 21 of the Act of 2008 is plain, clear and unambiguous in its meaning. It has prohibited entertainment of any appeal after the expiry of a period of 90 days."

Core Principles Established

The judgment establishes that the 90-day period for filing appeals under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is mandatory and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The court determined that the appeal filed by the appellants beyond the 90-day period was not maintainable, and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

This analysis provides a structured overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the key issues, legal reasoning, and conclusions reached by the court.