Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/178/2025 on 30 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLA 190/2025
CRLA 178/2025
CRLA 179/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani,
Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. B.M. Molakhi, Deputy AG,
with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder, for
the State.
(2) As per revised scrutiny report
submitted by the Registry, these appeals
are beyond time by 232, 231 and 231
days respectively. Section 21(5) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
reads as under:
"21(5) Every appeal under this
section shall be preferred within a period of
thirty days from the date of the judgment,
sentence or order appealed from:
Provided that the High Court may
entertain an appeal after the expiry of the
said period of thirty days if it is satisfied
that the appellant had sufficient cause for
not preferring the appeal within the period
of thirty days:
Provided further that no appeal
shall be entertained after the expiry of
period of ninety days."
(3) Perusal of the aforesaid
provision indicates that although High
Court can entertain an appeal even after
expiry of limitation period of 30 days,
however no appeal can be entertained
after expiry of 90 days. Admittedly, in
this case, appeal was filed much after 90
days period.
(4) Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani,
learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant, has drawn our attention to an
order dated 5.4.2024, passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Diary
No. 5217 of 2024, State of U.P. v.
Sarfaraz Ali Jafri, in which Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued notice by
observing that due to conflicting views
expressed by different High Courts on
the question whether the second proviso
to Section 21(5) of NIA Act is mandatory
or directory, the question has to be
resolved once and for all. He also
referred to another order dated
4.2.2025, passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sajal Awasthi,
wherein it was provided that till the next
date of hearing in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 1076 of 2019 and other connected
cases, appeals/petitions preferred by
accused/victims will not be dismissed
only on the ground of delay.
(5) Learned Counsel for the
appellant drew our attention to an order
dated 7.10.2025, passed by Division
Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court, in
which after referring to order passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl) No.
10654-10655 of 2025 and the
concession recorded by learned Counsel
appearing for NIA, Hon'ble Patna High
Court fixed the appeal for consideration
on merits, ignoring the delay.
(6) Since there is a statutory bar in
condoning the delay beyond 90 days and
Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the
question whether the second proviso to
Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is
mandatory or directory, therefore, at this
stage, we do not find it prudent to hear
these appeals on merits.
(7) List after four weeks whenever
the Bench is available.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
30.10.2025
Pr
