A court's inherent powers can be invoked to extend timelines for compliance when adherence to orders is hindered by financial difficulties.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No. 11413 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The petitioner has asserted in the Crl.M.C. that he was the accused in ST No.7/2020 on the file Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Tirur (Trial Court). By Annexure A1 judgment, the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’, in short). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred Crl.Appeal No.85/2025 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirur (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application to suspend the execution of the sentence and to waive the payment of the compensation amount. By Annexure-A3 order, the Appellate Court allowed the application and granted the petitioner further period of 30 days from 03.10.2025 to remit 20% of the compensation amount. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not remit the compensation amount within the prescribed time period. Accordingly, he filed a fresh application before the Appellate Court seeking enlargement of time, which was dismissed by Annexure A4 order holding that it has no jurisdiction to grant further time under Rule 148 of the N.I.Act. Annexure A4 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. By Annexure-A2 order, the execution of the sentence was suspended in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that he executes a bond for Rs.1/- lakh with two solvent sureties and also deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court within 60 days from 02.07.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application seeking further time to comply with the direction to deposit 20% of the fine amount, which was also allowed by Annexure A3 order granting the petitioner further period of 30 days from 03.10.2025.

4. It is the petitioner’s case that he was unable to raise the above amount due to ailments and financial difficulty. Therefore, this Court may set aside Annexure A4 order and extend the time period to deposit 20% of the fine amount.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner would be satisfied, if he is permitted to deposit 20% of the fine amount within a reasonable time period fixed by this Court. The petitioner does not press for other contentions raised in the Crl.M.C.

6. On a peculiar consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly that the petitioner’s limited relief is only to extent the time period to deposit the compensation amount that is directed in Annexure A3 judgment, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C.

by directing Annexure A3 order to be kept in abeyance for a period of 30 days. It would be upto the petitioner to remit the fine amount of Rs.30,000/- before the Trial Court within four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the payment is made, the Trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings. On the contrary, if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, the Trial Court will be at liberty to execute the warrant in accordance with law.

sd/-