1 2026:HHC:26629 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 672 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.6.2026 Date of Decision: 06.7.2026. Sushil Jogta …. Petitioner Versus Bambir Singh …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ashish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for extension of time to deposit 20% of the compensation amount granted by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 18.03.2026. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months and pay a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26629 compensation of ₹2,46,000/-by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, District, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 04/2019. The petitioner filed an appeal. He also filed an application for suspension of sentence, which was allowed subject to the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days. The petitioner was unable to comply with the orders passed by the learned Appellate Court and filed an application seeking the extension of time. Learned Appellate Court extended the time by 30 days vide order dated 18.05.2026. The petitioner was unable to arrange the money within the time granted by the learned Appellate Court. He filed an application for extension of time, but he had to withdraw it. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Hence, the application for seeking an extension of the time. 3. Mr Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was unable to arrange the funds within the time stipulated by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner has now arranged the funds, and he will deposit the amount within the time prescribed by the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the time to deposit the amount be extended. 3 2026:HHC:26629 4. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. This amount shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant 6. It is apparent from the bare reading of the Section that the amount has to be deposited within 60 days, which can be extended by 30 days on showing sufficient cause. 7. This Court considered the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act in Surinder Singh Vs. Dharam Singh, Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023 and held that the court can only grant a time of 90 days for the deposit of the compensation amount. It was further held that the Court cannot extend the time in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, as the inherent jurisdiction cannot be 4 2026:HHC:26629 used for circumventing the provision of law. This judgment is binding upon this Court. 8. It is undisputed that the period of 90 days has expired from the date of ordering the suspension of the sentence. Hence, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner that the time be extended cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 10. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 6th July, 2026 (Chander)