JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed with a request that the time for submission of personal bond given by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, in his order dated 1-9-1987 be further extended. 2. Mr. Shrimal learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had granted one month's time to furnish the bonds and the said time has already expired and this court under Section 482 Cr.PC cannot extend the period granted by the learned Sessions Judge. It has been further submitted that no appeal has been filed against the judjement of Sessions Judge and as such the direction given by the Sessions Judge has become final. It has also been argued that the petitioner has not surrendered before this court and as such his request for extension of time cannot be considered. 3. Mr. Dhankar learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an illiterate person and got an impression that he has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge. On 9-12-1987 the petitioner learnt from his counsel that he was to execute a bond in terms of the judjement dated 1-9-1987. The petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Hon'ble court under Section 482 Cr.PC for extension of the time. It has been further argued that the petitioner has not misused the concession granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge during this intervening period. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. So far as the facts alleged in the petition are concerned they have not been disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the condition of furnishing the bond on 9-12-1987 when the time of one month had already expired. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did not misuse the concession granted to him during the intervening period. Section 482 Cr.PC provides inherent powers to the court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to an order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 5. Mr. Section 482 Cr.PC provides inherent powers to the court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to an order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 5. Mr. Shrimal placed reliance in support of his contention on Ram Lakhan v. State, 1986 Cr.LJ 617 . In the above case a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court took the view that the person sentenced to pay a fine must deposit the fine forthwith but may be permitted to deposit it after some time in the discretion of the court. Even in that event he must deposit the amount before the period specifically fixed by the court and if he does not do so, he immediately incurs the liability of being sent to prison. It would be the duty of the court to arrest him and confine him in to the prison. Only when such confinement in the prison has commenced that the accused can have a legal right to deposit the amount, whereupon Section 68, Indian Penal Code would come into operation and his imprisonment would be terminated. 6. In my view the deposit of fine is controlled by the specific provision of Section 68 IPC. So far as the furnishing of bond in the case of a probationer, there is no specific provision given in the Cr.PC for the period during which such bonds are to be furnished. It would of course depend on the facts of each individual case whether time should be extended or not but an accused cannot be left without any remedy even if he has made out a genuine case for extension of time. In such cases this court in its inherent powers is certainly entitled to extend the time or to pass any other appropriate order to secure the ends of justice. As already mentioned above the petitioner in the present case has made out a case for extension of time. In view of these circumstances this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted further one month's time from today to furnish the required bonds as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in his order dated 1-9-1987. In case of failure to do so, appropriate steps would be taken to serve out the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner. 7. In case of failure to do so, appropriate steps would be taken to serve out the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner. 7. The warrant of arrest if any issued against the petitioner would not be executed for a period of one month.Petition allowed. *******