Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 212 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1205 of 2022
                                 ---

1.Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha

2.Shila Marandi @ Shilla Hansda ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent

---

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

---

For the Appellants : Mr. J. S. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

---

2/12.01.2023 Heard Mr. J. S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. appearing for the State.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act.

Office has pointed out a defect that the appeal has been filed after expiry of maximum statutory period of 90 days and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.

Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appeal is maintainable, for which he has put in reliance in the case of "Farhan Shaikh Vs. State ( National Investigation Agency)" reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 9158. He has specifically referred to paragraph 90 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-

"90 Thus, so far as the constitution of NIA is concerned, it a complete code. However, the same cannot be said about the substantive offences, and the procedural laws which would be applicable for the purpose of investigation and conduct of trial of such offences. To the extent that Section 16 of the NIA Act prescribes powers of Special Courts, the same would prevail. However, in respect of matters not dealt with under the Act relating procedures, and the substantive offences, it is the provisions of the Code and the substantive laws enumerated in the schedule to the Act, which would be relevant. Even if, the Act is considered to be complete Code in so far as it provides the right of appeal, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to hold that the prescription of limitation in Section 21 (5) of the NIA Act is directory and not mandatory and that the High Court is empowered to entertain and consider application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The said application is maintainable".

In view of the issue having already been settled by the Delhi High Court, we find that this appeal is maintainable and accordingly the same is held to be maintainable.

In view of the fact that this appeal is held to be maintainable, office is directed to conduct a fresh stamp reporting and thereafter list this case under the heading 'For Orders' next week.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 3