IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMMO No. 237 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.3.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Mahinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jia Lal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who is accused in complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being aggrieved of order dated 27.2.2026, whereby an application for extension of time to comply with order dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, laying therein challenge to judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the court below, came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of the BNSS. 2 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, this court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondent, who is otherwise represented by Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, who states that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court while passing impugned order because application for extension of time came to be filed after expiry of hundred days. He states that since application was not filed before the expiration of time granted by the court below to deposit the amount, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below while passing impugned order. 3. Though having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, same calls for no interference, however having taken note of the fact that petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned court below within a period of one week, this Court sees no reason to go into the correctness of the impugned order and as such, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount and furnish personal and surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- strictly in terms of order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the court below 3 within a period of one week, failing which order dated 27.2.2026, shall automatically revive and thereafter, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount. Ordered accordingly. March 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge