Mandatory deposit deadline in cheque dishonour appeals cannot be extended beyond the statutory ceiling through inherent powers.

The statutory period for depositing the minimum amount in an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as mandatory, with only the limited extension expressly provided by the statute. The provision was read purposively to deter delay in cheque dishonour proceedings and secure prompt payment to the complainant. Inherent jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to override an express statutory ceiling or create a further extension beyond the maximum period contemplated by law. Accordingly, the text affirms that the deposit deadline cannot be enlarged past 90 days through inherent powers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time for deposit of the minimum amount under Section 148(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be extended beyond 90 days by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The provision governing deposit in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was read in the light of its text and purpose. The requirement of depositing at least 20% of the fine or compensation within 60 days, extendable by a further period not exceeding 30 days on sufficient cause, was treated as clear and unambiguous. The provision was construed purposively to suppress delay tactics in cheque dishonour matters and to advance the legislative object of ensuring prompt payment to the complainant. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held incapable of being used to override an express statutory limit or to create a further extension not contemplated by the statute.

Conclusion: The time limit under Section 148(2) is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond 90 days. The High Court has no power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant any further extension.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because the appellate court's refusal to grant further time was in accordance with the statutory scheme governing deposit in cheque dishonour appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific period with a limited extension, the court cannot invoke inherent jurisdiction to enlarge that period beyond the statutory ceiling, especially when such enlargement would frustrate the legislative object.

---