48. It is perplexing to note, the stand of the N.I.A. As noted earlier, Mr. Patil, learned Spl.P.P vehemently opposed the delay condonation application, on the premise that the 2nd proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 21 was mandatory and that no appeal beyond 90 days can be entertained, in view of the statutory bar. The contradiction in the stand taken by the N.I.A, is apparent. It is pertinent to note, that in the appeal filed by the N.I.A before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in National Investigation Agency Through its Chief Investigating Officer v. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Court Jammu (Supra) , the N.I.A had filed a delay condonation application, there being a delay of 40 days. The N.I.A urged before the said Court that the 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) of the N.I.A Act was directory. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, relying on the Delhi High Court judgment in Farhan Sheikh (Supra) , held that the 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) was directory and as such, condoned the said delay of 40 days (beyond the 90 days prescribed) caused in filing the appeal by the N.I.A and consequently, allowed the N.I.A's appeal. Similarly, in State of Chhattisgarh (Supra) before the Chhattisgarh High Court, N.I.A had filed an appeal against acquittal along with an
