IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.60 of 2024
Date of decision: 24.01.2024
Sanjeev Kumar ….Petitioner
Versus
Satish Kumar ....Respondent
________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Parv Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: None.
Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (Oral) :
The present petitioner vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.08.2023, passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., has been
convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and further to
pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine,
the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2
Rajgarh, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., the present petitioner had
preferred an appropriate appeal before learned Sessions Judge,
Sirmour, District at Nahan. Vide order dated 22.09.2023 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan in 20-Cr.M/4 of
2023 titled Sanjeev Kumar vs. Satish Kumar, the petitioner had been
directed to deposit 20% of fine amount and was required to furnish
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like
amount before learned trial court within a period of 60 days as per
Section 148(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Further vide
aforesaid order, an undertaking had been given by the petitioner that in
the event of failure of his appeal, the petitioner shall surrender before
the trial court to receive the sentence.
3. Since the compensation amount could not be deposited
within stipulated period, the present petitioner had moved an
application before learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan,
for seeking further extension of time. The said application was
dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2024 on account of the fact that the
statutory period as directed under Section 148(2) of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, i.e. 90 days had expired on 21.12.2023.
Therefore, the application filed for extension of time by the petitioner on
06.01.2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, was held to be not
maintainable as learned Sessions Judge has no discretion to extend
the time beyond 90 days.
3
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2024, passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan, the present
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed by the petitioner
seeking extension of time for depositing 20% of the fine amount as had
been ordered by learned Sessions Judge on 22.09.2023 in the appeal
filed by the present petitioner against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.08.2023.
5. From a perusal of the petition specifically Para-3 of the
petition, it is evident that on account of bonafide reasons detailed
therein, the petitioner was constrained from depositing 20% of the
compensation amount, as had been ordered by learned Sessions
Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan vide order dated 22.09.2023.
6. For the bonafide reasons mentioned in the present
petition and in the interest of justice, the period for depositing the
compensation amount, as ordered by learned Sessions Judge,
Sirmour, District at Nahan vide order dated 22.09.2023 is extended by
two weeks from today.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above-
terms.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Vacation Judge
24th January, 2024
(reena)