Manipur High Court
Mahairing Hungyo @ Achan vs National Investigation Agency(Nia) on 16 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
1
JOHN TELEN Digitally
TELEN KOM
signed by JOHN
KOM Date: 2025.07.22
07:34:22 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Cril.A)No.20 of 2024
Mahairing Hungyo @ Achan.
Petitioner
Vs.
National Investigation Agency(NIA).
Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J. & A Guneshwar Sharma, J)
16.07.2025.
[1] This Misc. case has been initiated by the applicant/petitioner
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 21 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 seeking for condonation of the
delay of 143 days in filing Criminal Appeal for setting aside of the order
dated 30.10.2023 rendered by the Ld. Court of Spl. Judge, NIA Manipur
in Mis. Cril. Case No.133 of 2023. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
which reads as thus:
“5.Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.–Any appeal or
any application, other than an application under any of the
provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant
or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for
2not preferring the appeal or making the application within such
period.”
[2] Heard Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the applicant and
inclusive of Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG for the
respondent.
[3] Whereas the learned counsel for the applicant in this matter
taken us through that the applicant/petitioner who is one of the accused is
intended to initiate Criminal Appeal relating to the order rendered by the
court having jurisdiction to deal the matter in Mis. Cril. Case No.133 of
2023 dated 30.10.2023. It is further contended that while in Central Jail
Sajiwa as early as in the month of October, 2023, however, the application
is in incarceration since from the date of apprehending by the Investigating
Agency. The learned counsel for the application in this matter referring the
content in the document vide annexure R/1 i.e. Medical document dated
26.08.2023, swelling of both lower limb and so also facilitated the
document vide Annexure R/2, i.e. document of taking loan by the parents
of the applicant. All these documents have been facilitated by the learned
counsel for the applicant for seeking condonation of delay which is stated
therein. The learned counsel for the applicant in further submitting that for
considering the alarming health condition of the applicant, a proceeding
in Cril. Mis(B) Case No.1 of 2024 was filed by the applicant before the
Special Judge(NIA), Manipur for granting bail on medical grounds, these
contentious contentions have been taken by the learned counsel for the
3
applicant and whereby seeking condonation of 143 days in order to file
an appeal.
[4] On the contrary, the learned Sr. PCCG, Mr. Vijayanand
Sharma for the respondent submitting that the accused had involved in
commission of offence which is indicating in the FIR and subsequent to
the registration of the FIR against the applicant/petitioner herein being
arrayed as accused and the proceeding in Mis. Cril. Case No.133 of 2023
has been ended in dismissal by an order dated 30.10.2023 but the
applicant intended to initiate criminal prosecution for challenging the
impugned order rendered by the court having jurisdiction to deal the
matter but the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in this matter
seeking for intervention and if there is no intervention of the order
rendered by the court below relating to the dismissal of the application
filed the accused, there shall be some miscarriage of justice and also
rights which accrued to the accused have been taken away, these are all
the primary contentions which have been taken by the learned counsel for
the applicant but the learned Sr. PCCG for the respondent in this matter
submitting that there is a provision of section 21(5), there is a limitation
for 90(ninety) days and thereafter, it cannot be arrived for seeking for
condonation of delay and aforesaid section 21(5) which reads as thus:
“21(5). Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a
period of thirty days from the date of the judgement, 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
4the appeal within the period of thirty days. Provided further that no
appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety days.”
[5] However, section 21 of NIA Act, it is dealing with the appeals but
the order dated 30.10.2023 rendered by the court of the Special
Judge(NIA), Manipur in Mis. Cril. Case No.133 of 2023 and application
has been filed by the accused for the concept of Juvenility in question.
However, for the Juvenile Justice Act, it is required to be addressed the
issue but in this mater seeking for condonation of delay of 143 days.
However, when once the FIR has been registered by the Investigating
Agency and thereafter proceed for investigation keeping in view the
provision of section 161 and 162 of CPC for recording the statement of
the witnesses and thereafter, only to file a charge sheet as keeping in view
the provision of section 173 of Cr.PC, which read as thus:
“173.Report of police officer on completion of investigation
Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without
unnecessary delay.
1A. The investigation in relation to an offence under sections 376, 376A,
376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E of the Indian Penal Code
shall be completed within two months1 from the date on which the
information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.
2. (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station
shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence
on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government,
stating-
a) the names of the parties;
b) the nature of the information;
c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with
the circumstances of the case;
d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if
so, by whom;
e) whether the accused has been arrested;
f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether
with or without sureties;
5
g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has
been attached where investigation relates to an offence under
sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA,
376DB, or 376E of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the
person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the
offence was first given.
3. Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the
report, shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or
special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may,
pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police
station to make further investigation.
4. Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the
accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such
order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
5. When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the
police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-
a. all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution
proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate
during investigation;
b. the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom
the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
6. If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not
relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the
accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the
public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note
requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted
to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
7. Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do,
he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred
to in Sub-Section (5).
8. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in
respect of an offence after a report under Sub-Section (2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary,
he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding, such
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-Sections (2) to
(6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they
apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-Section (2).
Therefore, at this stage it can’t be arrived for dwelling in
detail about the materials in respect of the registration of the case against
the applicant being arrayed as accused in the aforesaid offences which is
6
reflected in the FIR and therefore, the aforesaid reasons stated in this
application are found to be justifiable and also acceptable.
[6] Whereas keeping in view the section 21(5) states that every
appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of 30(thirty)
days. Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the
expiry of the said period of 30(thirty) days. Whereas section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 allows a court to condone delay if the appellant shows
sufficient cause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s approach relating to
Sushila Aggarwal v. Union of India(2024-2025)(Pending Judgement). In
several Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) led by Sushila Devi, the Supreme
Court temporarily stayed dismissal of NIA appeals beyond 90 days. A 3-
judge bench issued an interim order in January 2025. Appeals under
section 21 of the NIA Act shall not be dismissed solely on the ground that
they were filed beyond the prescribed limitation of 90 days. The Bench is
examining whether the second provision to section 21(5) is mandatory or
directory and whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies. However, in
a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are concerned and
also keeping in view the provision of section 21(5) proviso and also the
scope of the provisions of laws are concerned, it is deemed appropriate
that the reasons stated in this Misc. Case filed under section 5 of the
Limitation Act of 1963 are found to be justifiable and also acceptable.
Hence this misc. case deserved for consideration. In view of the above
reasons and findings, I am of the considered opinion that this application
7
may be allowed and accordingly, it is hereby allowed. Consequently, the
delay of 143 days in filing an appeal in respect of the impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 as rendered in Mis. Cril. Case No.133 of 2023 is hereby
condoned.
Views of Hon’ble Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma:
[7] I have considered the views of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and
with great respect, I differ from this opinion. A learned Single Judge of
this court already held in order dated 27.06.06.2024 in Cril. Petn.No.33 of
2024 & 34 of 2024 that against any order passed by the Special Court
NIA, an appeal under section 21 of the NIA Act of 2008 lies before the
Division Bench and section 21(5) prescribes 90(ninety) days maximum
for entertaining an appeal by High Court against such order passed by
Special Court. In the present case, the application for condonation is filed
under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 21 of NIA Act for
condoning the delay of 143 days in preferring an appeal against the order
dated 30.10.2023 passed by Special Judge, NIA Manipur in Cril. Misc.
Case No.133 of 2023 in NIA Case No. Rc-33/2021/NIA/DLI. It is settled
proposition of law that if the period of Limitation and procedure for
condonation of appeal are prescribed in the special statue, the general
provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 specially section 5 will not be
applicable [In the case of Union of India V.Popular Construction
Co.,(2001) 8 SCC 470]. Hence, in the circumstances, the appeal is barred
8by time in view of the proviso to section 21(5) of NIA Act and the
application is accordingly dismissed.
[8] However in a given dissenting opinion by the companying
Judge in this appeal proceeding relating to the application filed under
section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also keeping the provision
section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008 but there is a limitation for 90(ninety)
days but the limitation relating to the proceeding has been initiated by the
concerned Investigating Agency and more so when there is a dissenting
opinion, it is deemed appropriate that that this matter would referred to
third Bench. Accordingly, Registry be directed to assign this matter to the
third Bench to persuade the matter in accordance with law.
ORDER FOR BEING SPOKEN TO/CLARIFICATORY
17.07.2025.
[9] On suo moto, this matter has been listed for order for being
spoken dated 16.07.2025 whereby the proceeding in MC(Cril.A)No.20 of
2024 has been initiated by the applicant/petitioner as under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act of 1963 read with section 21 of the NIA, Act, 2008
seeking for condonation of delay of 143 days.
[10] Heard Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner and so also Mr. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr.
PCCG for the National Investigation Agency(NIA).
9
[11] However on 16.07.2025, the matter was ended in dispute by
rendering an order for condonation of delay of 143 days as sought for in
the Misc. Case proceeding but the said proceeding was ended in
rendering an order by hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for
the applicant and inclusive of the learned counsel for the NIA. However,
the issue involved in the matter is only relating to the condonation of delay
of 143 days but section 21(5), it is in three part, proviso 1; proviso 2 and
proviso 3. However this is relating to the period of limitation, it is stated
specifically in the aforesaid NIA Act, 2008 but the said order is required to
be clarify and also order for being spoken keeping in view the judgment
rendered by the by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and more so it is
solely a right of an appeal, that appeal provision is there and it is only for
preferring an appeal relating to the challenging the impugned order
rendered by the court having jurisdiction to deal the matter and even under
NIA Act of 2008 that the issue in between the applicant/petitioner and
equally the respondent’s roles are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to
refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
also made an observation in WP(C)No.1076 of 2019 in the case of Sajal
Awasthi Vs. Union of India and in that proceeding has been initiated under
the relevant Articles of the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India addressed the issue relating to the limitation period as
indicating in section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008. The Supreme Court
Clarifies stands on NIA appeals/limitation period not an absolute bar to
10
admissibility. The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical diversions
of opinion among the high Court regarding limitation period of appeals
filed under NIA. In recent interim order, the apex court clarifies that the
appeals brought under section 21 of the NIA Act should not be dismissed
outright solely on the basis of exceeding prescribed 90 days limitation
period. The Hon’ble Supreme of India explains that the core of the issue
lies in a different interpretation of the proviso within section 21(5) of the
NIA Act of 2008 which stipulates that the appeals must be filed within 90
days. While the Act allows for appeals against the judgment, sentences
or orders (excluding the interlocutory orders) made by Special Court, the
90 days window has been a point of contention. Two recent High Court
decisions highlights the contrasting views. In 2023, the Bombay High court
took a more lenient stand by stating ruling that the appellate courts
possessed discretion to condone the delays extending beyond the 90
days mark, provided that sufficient cause for the delay is adequately
demonstrate. This interpretation prioritized the merits of the appeals and
principle of Natural Justice allowing of exceptional circumstances to be
taken into account.
Whereas in 2024, the Madras High Court adopted a stricter
interpretation, asserting that high court lack the inherent powers to
condone the delays beyond the explicitly defined 90 days limit for appeals
under the NIA Act. This perspective emphasis the important of adhering
to statutory time line and preventing prolong legal proceeding. However,
11
in recognizing the potential for inconsistency and the need for a uniform
application of the law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the instant
case intervened to provide clarity. The interim order explicitly states that
appeals filed by accused individual or victim will not be summarily
dismissed merely because the delay exceed 90 days period. The
intervention signals the Supreme Court’s intervention to examining the
nature of the limitation period, whether it is directory, providing guidance
but allowing for exceptions or mandatory requiring strict adherence. The
court final determination will have significant implication for the future
admissibility of appeals under the NIA Act. The Supreme court’s decision
to consider the condonation of delay in NIA appeals underscore its
commitment to balancing the needs for timely resolution of cases with the
fundamental right to seek legal recourses. Additional Solicitor General
Mr, KM Nataraj represented the NIA in the proceeding, highlighting the
significant of the issues for the Investigating Agency under broader
landscape.
[12] In so far as the order rendered in the aforesaid matter by this
bench dated 16.07.2025, it is relating to the condonation of delays of 143
days and the same has been indicating in a proceeding initiated by the
applicant that the appeal provision it is indicating in section 21(5) of NIA
Act, 2008, it is in the first form, second form and also the 3rd part totally 30
days, 30 days and 90 days. However, the appeal is nothing but continuity
of the proceeding but in the aforesaid provision of section 21(5) of the NIA
12
Act, 2008, it is indicating that the appeals relating to the judgement,
sentences or orders but in the instant case, this appeal has been preferred
by seeking condonation of delay of 143 days to initiate the appeal
proceeding relating to the impugned order rendered by the by the Ld.
Court of Spl. Judge, NIA Manipur dated 30.10.2023 rendered in Mis. Cril.
Case No.133 of 2023. However regarding the limitation point, it is to be
considered, it is a discretionary power and that power has be exercised in
accordance with law by giving opportunity to the parties to the list, even
civil list or even to the extent of criminal list and so also list has to be
initiated as under writ provision and therefore, having said that and
keeping in view the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, it is deemed appropriate that and more so there shall be
some opinion expressed by my brother namely, Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar
Sharma keeping in view the section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008 but it is in
interest of justice and more so keeping in view the relevant provision of
law and so also the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme of India,
it is deemed appropriate to state that the position of law which was settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme of India in the aforesaid proceeding which has
been stated and therefore in this matter it is deemed appropriate that the
proceeding which has been initiated by keeping in view the provision of
section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 21(5) of the NIA
Act, 2008 is deserved for consideration in the interest of justice keeping
in view the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
13
[13] Whereas keeping in view the each ground of this proceeding
and making used of the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act but the
grounds taken by the learned applicant are found to be bonafide, good
grounds, justifiable as well as acceptable one and therefore, it is deemed
appropriate that this proceeding which has been initiated by the
applicant/petitioner deserved to be considered for condoning the delay of
143 days in filing an appeal. Accordingly, this Misc. case is hereby allowed
and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings.
[14] Whereas in the order dated 16.07.2025, there was some of
differing of opinion expressed by my brother, Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar
Sharma relating to the provision of section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008 and
in his dictation cited a judgement in the case of Union of India V.Popular
Construction Co.,(2001) 8 SCC 470 but in the latest judgment, it is a
settled position of law relating to the section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008
and therefore this mater do not arise for referring to the 3rd Bench to
address the issue and consequently, the issued which has been
addressed in this matter is in accordance with law and inclusive of the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme of India.
[15] Consequent upon the disposing of this Misc. case
proceeding, it is deemed appropriate to make an observation that the
appellant party may proceed for initiation of an appeal in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the NIA Act of 2008 and inclusive of any
provision available for addressing the issue.
14
[16] However, keeping in view of the above observations and
consequent upon the consideration of the matter, it does not arise for
referring the matter to the 3rd Bench.
[17] Accordingly, order for being spoken to in detail has been
passed by referring the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme of
Court of India and also the position of law which has been settled relating
to the scope of section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008. Accordingly ordered.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom FR
[ad_1]
Source link