IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 26 of 2025 Decided on: 08.01.2025 ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Kumar ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record appended alongwith the present petition. 2. Vide judgment dated 05.07.2024 passed in complaint No. 265/3 of 2022/20 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the present petitioner had been convicted. Feeling aggrieved of the same, an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Solan District Solan H.P. The matter was listed before the Appellate Court on 07.08.2024. On the said date, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was suspended subject to the petitioner herein furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and depositing 20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court within a period of one month from 07.08.2024. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Admittedly in the case at hand within one month of passing of the order dated 07.08.2024 by the 1st Appellate Court, 20% of the compensation amount could not be deposited before the trial Court by the petitioner herein. As a sequel thereto, the present petitioner preferred yet another application seeking extension of time for depositing 20% of the compensation amount in terms of order dated 07.08.2024, whereby sentence imposed by the trial Court had been suspended subject to deposit of the 20% of the compensation amount. The aforesaid application came up before the Appellate Court on 06.09.2024. The application was allowed and time for furnishing 20% of the compensation amount was further extended in the case at hand by the 1st Appellate Court on 06.09.2024 by one month from 06.09.2024. 4. During the extended time also, the petitioner was unable to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. 5. The power of the Appellate Court in the case at hand directing the present petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the Appellate Court comes from Section 148. A perusal of Section 148 (sub section 2) thereof makes it evident that time to deposit can in the first date be granted up to a maximum of 60 days. Subsequent extension on showing sufficient cause for depositing 20% of the compensation amount can be further extended by 30 days. In all, the appellate 3 Court can grant 90 days to the appellant before it to deposit the compensation amount. 6. Indisputably in the case at hand, period of 90 days has expired. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the present petitioner has approached this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, since no harm of prejudice shall be caused to the private respondents, in the interest of justice and for the bona fide reasons mentioned in the petition, time to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the 1st appellate Court vide its order(s) dated 07.08.2024, 06.09.2024 is extended further by 60 days. It is made clear that no further extension in this present shall be afforded to the present petitioner. 2. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge January 08, 2025 tarun