Dismissed¶31

Sushil Jogta v. Bambir Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026CRMMO/672/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 NI Act: 20% compensation deposit on suspension of sentence in drawer's appeal against S.138 conviction; maximum period 60 days plus 30 days' extension (90 days total); no further extension permissible and inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent S.148; Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh (Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided 14.12.2023) followed as binding; petition for extension of deposit time dismissed (H.P. High Court, Cr. MMO No. 672 of 2026, decided 06.7.2026, Rakesh Kainthla J.; neutral citation 2026:HHC:26629).

What did the court decide?

Under Section 148 of the NI Act, the sum ordered to be deposited in an appeal by the drawer must be deposited within sixty days of the order, extendable by a further period not exceeding thirty days on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. ¶24

Sushil Jogta Vs Bambir Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the time allowed to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount could be extended beyond the maximum period permitted under Section 148 of the NI Act (sixty days, extendable by a further thirty days on sufficient cause).

¶12

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The time for deposit cannot be extended beyond that statutory maximum in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, as inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the provision of law; the Court treated its earlier judgment in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh (Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023) as binding upon this Court.

¶28

Key takeaways

Since the period of ninety days had expired from the date of ordering suspension of the sentence, the petitioner's prayer that the time for deposit be extended could not be accepted.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioner, convicted under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment of 6 months and compensation of ₹2,46,000/- by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr (Criminal Complaint No. 04/2019), had his sentence suspended in appeal subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation within 60 days (Appellate Court order dated 18.03.2026); time was once extended by 30 days (order dated 18.05.2026). Seeking a further extension, he filed this petition. The Court held that per Section 148 NI Act the deposit must be made within 60 days, extendable by at most 30 days on sufficient cause, and that the time cannot be extended through inherent jurisdiction, as that would circumvent the statute — following its earlier judgment in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh, Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023 (decided 14.12.2023), which binds this Court. The 90-day period having expired, the prayer was rejected and the petition dismissed; the observations were confined to the disposal of the petition with no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶1

¶2

2026:HHC:26629

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

Cr. MMO No. 672 of 2026

¶5

Reserved on: 30.6.2026 Date of Decision: 06.7.2026.

¶6

Sushil Jogta …. Petitioner Versus Bambir Singh …. Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the Petitioner	: Mr Ashish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent	: None.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶16

¶17

2026:HHC:26629

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

¶21

2026:HHC:26629

¶22

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:26629

¶28

used for circumventing the provision of law. This judgment is binding upon this Court.

¶29

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.

¶30

In view of the above, the present petition fails and is

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

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.

¶33

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶34

6^th July, 2026 (Chander)

Sushil Jogta v. Bambir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Jogta v. Bambir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadvinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Kaman Kumar

Bihari Lal ( deleted) deceased through LRs Pritam Chand and Ors. Vs Brahmi Devi deleted Hem Raj and others

Sarishta @ Settu Vs State

Tula Ram Vs Mohan Pyari

Pardeep Kumar @ Sukha Vs State of Hp