Dismissed¶29

Sushil Jogta v. Puran Khoond

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026CRMMO/673/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time; Section 148 NI Act; 20% of compensation deposit; suspension of sentence; 60 days plus 30 days; 90-day outer limit; inherent jurisdiction cannot circumvent statute; Section 138 NI Act conviction; compensation Rs. 4,67,000/-; Criminal Complaint No. 310 of 2018; Cr. MMO No. 673 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023 followed; petition dismissed; single judge Rakesh Kainthla.

What did the court decide?

Under Section 148 NI Act, the amount ordered to be deposited on appeal must be deposited within 60 days, extendable by 30 days on showing sufficient cause; the outer limit is thus 90 days. ¶24

Sushil Jogta Vs Puran Khoond — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the time for depositing 20% of the compensation amount, as required under Section 148 NI Act pursuant to the Appellate Court's order dated 18.03.2026, can be further extended beyond the 60-day period already once extended by 30 days.

¶12

Court's answer

Under Section 148 NI Act, the amount ordered to be deposited on appeal must be deposited within 60 days, extendable by 30 days on showing sufficient cause; the outer limit is thus 90 days.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Following this Court's binding earlier decision in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh (Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023), only a maximum of 90 days can be granted for deposit of the compensation amount, and time cannot be extended in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, as inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the provision of law.

¶28

Key takeaways

The period of 90 days having undisputedly expired from the date of ordering suspension of sentence, the petitioner's prayer for extension of time cannot be accepted.ratio¶29
The observations made in the judgment remain confined to the disposal of the petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.148 — Deposit of 20% of compensation as condition for suspension of sentence in drawer's appeal against S.138 conviction — Statutory period: 60 days from the order, extendable once by not more than 30 days on sufficient cause; outer limit 90 days — Petitioner convicted under S.138 NI Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 4,67,000/- (Criminal Complaint No. 310 of 2018, ACJM Rampur Bushehr); sentence suspended subject to 20% deposit within 60 days; one 30-day extension granted on 18.05.2026; further extension sought — Held, following this Court's decision in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh (Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided 14.12.2023), which binds this Court, no time beyond 90 days can be granted and inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to circumvent S.148 — 90-day period expired; petition dismissed; observations confined to disposal of the petition, without bearing on merits.

¶1

¶2

2026:HHC:26630

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

Cr. MMO No. 673 of 2026

¶5

Reserved on: 30.6.2026 Date of Decision: 6.7.2026.

¶6

Sushil Jogta …. Petitioner Versus Puran Khoond …. 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:26630

¶18

compensation of ₹4,67,000/- by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, District, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 310 of 2018. 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:26630

¶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:26630

¶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. Puran Khoond

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Jogta v. Puran Khoond

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