2026:HHC:28413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 647 of 2026 Reserved on: 24.06.2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026. Dhanvir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Inderjeet Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K.Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Nemo Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition to set aside the order dated 06.05.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib District, Solan, HP (Learned Appellate Court), vide which, an application filed under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sakshya Sahita (BNSS) for extension of time was dismissed by the Court. It has been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:28413 asserted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a compensation of ₹4,60,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner filed an appeal, which is pending before the learned Additional Session Judge, Paonta Sahib District, Sirmaur, HP. (learned Appellate Court). The petitioner filed an application for suspension of sentence, which was allowed on 24.01.2026 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were suspended subject to the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹30,000/- within two months. The petitioner could not comply with the order dated 24.01.2026, and he filed an application for extension of time, which was allowed and the time was extended by 15 days vide order dated 30.03.2026. The petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 30.03.2026, and he prayed for an extension of time. This application was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court on 06.05.2026. The order passed by the learned Appellate Court could not be complied with because the petitioner was facing financial constraints. Therefore, it was prayed that the present 3 2026:HHC:28413 petition be allowed and one more opportunity be granted to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Hence, the petition. 2. Mr V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner could not comply with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court because of the financial difficulties. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose and comply with the order of the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, he prayed that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 24.01.2026. 3. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that 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 in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138. This amount shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as 4 2026:HHC:28413 may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant 5. It is apparent from the bare reading of the Section that the amount has to be deposited within 60 days, which time can be extended by 30 days on showing sufficient cause. 6. This Court held in Surinder Singh vs. Dharam Singh & another bearing Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023, that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to extend the time after the lapse of 90 days in view of the peremptory language contained in Section 148 of the NI Act. This judgment is binding upon this Court. 7. The original order of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was passed on 24.01.2026, and the period of 90 days had elapsed on the date of dismissal of the application by the learned Appellate Court on 06.05.2026. Thus, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is as per the judgment of this Court and no interference is required with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. 5 2026:HHC:28413 8. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th July, 2026. (Ravinder)