IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 329 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Satya Jeet Bhandari ……...Petitioner Versus Harish and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, very innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner to permit him to deposit draft dated 21.2.2026 amounting to Rs. 1,16,000/- before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rampur, in case No. 220 of 2016, titled Harish v. Satya Jeet, pursuant to order dated 6.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.1 and as such, same is dispensed with, whereas learned Additional Advocate General is already present on behalf of respondent No.2/State. 2 3. Respondent No.1 instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that cheque issued by the petitioner-accused towards lawful liability was dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds”. Since despite issuance of legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good within stipulated time, court below held him guilty under the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,80,000/- to the respondent/complainant. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur Division at Rampur, who vide order dated 6.12.2025, stayed the substantive sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within one month. Since petitioner-accused failed to comply with the afore order within stipulated time, he filed application for extension of time, which was also allowed vide order dated 21.1.2026 and further one month’s time was also granted, but since despite there being extension of time, accused has been not able to do the needful within ninety days, he has approached this Court for grant of further time. 3 5. Though petitioner accused again filed application for extension of time, but same was withdrawn for the reason that court of learned Sessions Judge, had no power to extend time beyond ninety days. In the afore background, petitioner accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 6. Though having taken note of the fact that, repeatedly time was extended, enabling the petitioner accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, there appears to be no justification to grant further time, however having taken note of the fact that petitioner-accused has already prepared the bank draft and he is ready and willing to deposit the same within a period of two days, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the same with direction to the petitioner to comply with order dated 6.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, within a period of four days, failing which no more opportunity shall be granted and thereafter, respondent/complainant would be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. April 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge