IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revison No. 178 of 2025 Decided on : 27.06.2025 Bachhan Pal ....Petitioner Versus Arun Parihar ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting. For the petitioner : None For the respondent : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla,Judge(Oral) A perusal of the order dated 06.12.2024 shows that learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) had suspended the execution of the substantive sentence imposed on 05.11.2024 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) with a direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. 2. The petitioner/applicant/accused did not comply with the directions and filed an application for extension of time. Learned Appellate Court dismissed the application on 26.03.2025 as per provisions of Section 148(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act) and the judgment of this Court passed 2 in Surender Singh vs. Dharam Singh & Anr, bearing Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023. 3. Being aggrieved from the order, the present revision has been filed asserting that the petitioner/applicant/accused could not deposit the amount due to his financial difficulties. He is ready and willing to deposit the money within time granted by the Court. 4. This Court has already held in Suridner Singh (supra) that time of 60 days prescribed under Section 148(2) of the N.I.Act cannot be extended by the Court. It is undisputed that period of 60 days had expired on the date of filing of the application and there is no error in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in dismissing the application. 5. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 6. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th June, 2025. (ravinder) 3