2009 (4) TMI 1013 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Criminal revision petition against conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act after Lok Adalat award.

Issue 1: Conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act after Lok Adalat award

The case involved a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a dishonored cheque. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat where both parties agreed to a settlement, with the accused agreeing to pay a specified amount to the complainant. However, the Judicial Magistrate later convicted the accused under Section 138 and imposed a sentence, leading to an appeal before the Sessions Judge.

Details: The Lok Adalat award was considered final and binding, with no appeal lying against it. The accused failed to comply with the agreed settlement, leading to the Magistrate's conviction. The Sessions Judge granted a limited stay but directed the accused to pay the settlement amount as a condition.

Issue 2: Legal implications of Lok Adalat award and subsequent conviction

The key legal question was whether the Magistrate could convict the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act post the Lok Adalat award. The defense argued that the Lok Adalat award should be treated as a civil court decree, entitling the complainant to execute it accordingly.

Details: The defense cited Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, emphasizing the finality and binding nature of Lok Adalat awards. The failure to comply with the award did not justify the Magistrate's conviction, as the award should have been executed like a civil court decree.

Issue 3: Judicial authority post Lok Adalat award

The question of the Magistrate's jurisdiction post the Lok Adalat award was raised. It was contended that the Magistrate, having become functus officio after the award, could not convict the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Details: The defense argued that the Magistrate's order was not sustainable in law post the Lok Adalat award. The accused's non-compliance with the settlement terms did not justify the Magistrate's conviction, as the award was deemed an executable decree.

In conclusion, the criminal revision petition was allowed, setting aside the Magistrate's conviction. The complainant was granted the liberty to file an Execution Petition to recover the settlement amount as per the Lok Adalat award, emphasizing the binding nature of the award in the eyes of the law.