Court grants extension for payment in criminal case under Section 138 of NI Act without imposing additional compensation. Petition disposed in favor of petitioner.

The Court granted the petitioner's request for an extension of time to pay the balance amount in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite acknowledging the delay, the Court did not impose additional compensation, allowing the petitioner to pay by a specified date. The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, with the balance amount already deposited and ordered for release to the respondent's bank account by a specified deadline.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for extension of time to pay settled amount in a criminal case.

Analysis:
1. Background of the Case: The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. An appeal was filed, and the matter was settled amicably between the parties, with a balance amount of Rs. 68,000 to be paid by a specified date.

2. Petitioner's Request for Extension: The petitioner, unable to pay the balance amount due to financial constraints and health issues, sought an extension of time to make the payment. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was unintentional, and now the petitioner was ready to fulfill the obligation.

3. Respondent's Position: The respondent did not oppose the extension request but sought compensation for the delay caused. The respondent's counsel acknowledged the delay but did not object to the extension of time for payment.

4. Court's Decision: After considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the case documents, the Court found that the delay in payment was not deliberate. The Court decided to grant the extension requested by the petitioner without imposing any additional compensation for the delay.

5. Disposition of the Petition: The Court allowed the petition, extending the time for payment of the balance amount up to 20th May, 2022. The Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited the amount with the Registry, ordering its release to the respondent's bank account.

6. Final Order: The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, with the balance amount paid and released to the respondent as per the Court's order. The Court emphasized that the delay was not substantial and, therefore, did not require additional compensation from the petitioner.

This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the background of the case, arguments presented by both parties, the Court's decision, and the final outcome of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---