2025:HHC:27446 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 680 of 2025 Reserved on: 5.8.2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025. Rahul Huddone ...Petitioner Versus Jagdish Sirkek ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s Sative Chauhan and Rohit Thakur, Advocates. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of ₹19,50,000 to the complainant. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur ordered the suspension of sentence, subject to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27446 furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, and the deposit of 10% of the compensation amount within one month, vide order dated 28.8.2024. The order was not complied with, and the learned Sessions Judge extended the time till 29.10.2024 vide order dated 30.9.2024. Another application was filed for seeking extension of time, and the time was extended till 7.12.2024. The amount was not deposited, and the time was extended till 10.1.2025 vide order dated 11.12.2024. It appears that the orders have not been complied with, and the present petition has been filed seeking two months more time for depositing 10% of the compensation amount. 2. Heard. 3. M/s Sative Chauhan and Rohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner/accused could not deposit the amount within the time granted by the learned Appellate Court; therefore, they prayed that the present application be allowed and the time be extended by two months. They relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jambo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation 3 2025:HHC:27446 2023 INSC 822 and Muskan Enterprises Vs. State Punjab 2024 INSC 1046 in support of their submission. 4. I have given considerable thought to their submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. This Court held in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh and another, Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023, that the period of 90 days prescribed for deposit of compensation amount under Section 148(2) of the NI Act is mandatory and cannot be extended by taking recourse to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The period of 90 days granted by the learned Sessions Judge has already expired, and it is impermissible to extend the same by taking recourse to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 6. In Jambo Bhandari (supra), it was held that the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is not mandatory and the Court can reduce/relax the amount keeping in view the circumstances of the case. A similar view was taken in Muskan Enterprises (supra). In the present case, the order of deposit of 10% of the compensation amount has attained finality as it was not challenged within the statutory time, and the judgments in Jambo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises (supra) will not 4 2025:HHC:27446 help the petitioner. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the cited judgments on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Since the time of 90 days prescribed by the legislature under Section 148(2) has expired, therefore, the same cannot be extended. 8. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed and so are the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 9. The observations made hereinafter shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th August 2025 (Chander)