Om Prakash vs Kuldeep Kukreja

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The record reveals that an application for suspension of the sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, on 14.11.2025, and a period of 30 days was granted to the applicant to furnish personal and surety bonds and to deposit 20 % of the cheque amount.

An application was filed seeking the extension of time, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, on 17.12.2025. Thereafter, the applicant again filed an application seeking suspension of sentence on 24.12.2025, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that sufficient time had already been afforded to the applicant to comply with the order and the application was not maintainable.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant/accused has approached this Court to set aside the impugned order and seek an extension of time.

Section 148(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that the amount has to be deposited within 60 days from the date of the order, which period may be extended by a further period of 30 days upon sufficient cause being shown by the applicant. Therefore, the legislation has provided a period of 60 days to the applicant/accused for depositing the amount. This Court held in Sardar Sarvjeet Singh vs Janak Raj Khazanchi 2023 STPL 7600 HP that the Appellate Court cannot grant less than 60 days to deposit the amount and observed:

"5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted on the plain reading of the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Appellate Court is under a mandate to allow a period of 60 days for depositing the amount as required under sub-section (1) of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Noticeably, Section 148 starts with a non obstante clause and therefore overrides the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

It appears that the attention of the learned Sessions Judge was not drawn to the provision of Section 148 (2) and the judgment of this Court. Hence, learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the application for extension could not have been granted on 24.12.2025 within the statutory period of 60 days granted by the legislation. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained as being contrary to the statutory provisions and is ordered to be set aside.

Since the applicant was prevented from depositing the amount and furnishing the bail bonds by an erroneous order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the period of four weeks is granted to the applicant to furnish the personal and surety bonds, if not furnished earlier, and to deposit the requisite amount.

Application stands disposed of.

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the

Website of the High Court.