K. Balasubramanian v. Gopalakrishna Pai and Others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 18TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 1123 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2011 IN CC 986/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2013 IN CRA 472/2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ,ALAPPUZHA. ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:` ``` K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.KUMARA PILLAI, P.K.HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SMT.ANIES MATHEW ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` - `1 GOPALAKRISHNA PAI, UDUMBANADU HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN 688528.` - `2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.` - `ADDL.R3 GOPINATHA PAI S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PAI, UDUMBANADU HOUSE, PALLIPURAM PO, CHERTHALA` - `ADDL.R4 NARAYANA PAI S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PAI, UDUMBANADU HOUSE, PALLIPURAM PO, CHERTHALA` - `ADDL.R5 MAHESH PAI S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PAI, UDUMBANADU HOUSE, PALLIPURAM PO, CHERTHALA (ADDL. RESPONDENTS R3,R4,R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 IN CRL.M.A 3442/2014 IN CRL.RP 1123/2014)` ``` BY ADV SRI.JOBY CYRIAC ``` ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2023 ## **O R D E R** Can a revision petition be heard on its merits after the Lok Adalat passes an award under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987(in short, ‘Act’) is the short question that arises for consideration? 2. The revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, in Crl.Appeal No.472/2011, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner in C.C.No.986/2007 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala (Trial Court) for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revision petitioner was the accused and the first respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition, the first respondent died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` 4. When the revision petition came up for hearing, this Court referred the parties to the Lok Adalat attached to this Court. 5. In the negotiation held by the Lok Adalat, the revision petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 settled the disputes, whereby the revision petitioner agreed to pay the respondents 3 to 5 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/within a period of six months from 12.11.2022. Consequently, the parties executed an agreement in the above lines, which was countersigned by the respective counsel and the members of the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the Lok Adalat passed an award dated 12.11.2022. 6. Now, the Registry has posted the revision petition before this Court. 7. Heard; Sri. Julian Xavier J., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Sri. Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel appearing for the ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` respondents 3 to 5 and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent – State. 8. Sri. Joby Cyriac submitted that, notwithstanding the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the revision petitioner has failed to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within six months from 12.11.2022. Therefore, this Court may ignore the award and decide the revision petition on its merits. The said submission was vehemently opposed by Sri. Julian Xavier, who argued that, after the passing of the award, this Court is obliged to close the revision petition and the respondents’ remedy is to execute the award. 9. It is an admitted fact that, pursuant to the reference made by this Court, the parties settled their disputes in the Lok Adalat and an award was passed, whereby the revision petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondents 3 to 5 in full and final ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` settlement of the disputes between the parties. 10. The question whether an award passed in the Adalat, pursuant to a reference made by the Criminal Court, is a decree and is capable of execution by a Civil Court, is no longer res integra, in view of the emphatic declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Govindan Kutty Menon v. Shaji** [2011 (4) KLT 857 (SC)], wherein it is observed as under. “14. A statutory support as evidenced in the statement of Objects and reasons of the Act would not only reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular Courts, but would also take justice to the door steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive. In the case on hand, the Courts below erred in holding that only if the matter was one which was referred by a Civil Court it could be a decree and if the matter was referred by a Criminal Court it will only be an order of the Criminal Court and not a decree under S.21 of the Act. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a Civil Court and Criminal Court. There is no restriction on the power of Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in a case referred by a Criminal Court under S.138 of the NI Act, and by virtue of the deeming provision it has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a Civil Court. In this regard, the view taken in Subhash Narasappa Mangrule (supra) and M/s Valarmathi Oil Industries (supra) supports this contention and we fully accept the same. 15. It is useful to refer the judgment of this Court in State ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` of Punjab and Another v. Jalour Singh and Others, 2008 (2) KHC 89 : 2008 (2) SCC 660 : 2008 (2) SCALE 52 : 2008 (2) KLT 236 : AIR 2008 SC 1209 : 2008 (1) KLJ 887. The ratio that decision was that the "award" of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat. This judgment was followed in B. P. Moideen Sevamandir and Another v. A. M. Kutty Hassan, 2009 KHC 4005 :2009 (2) SCC 198 : 2009 (1) KLT 235 : ILR 2009 (1) Ker. 234. 16. In P. T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, 2005 KHC 1168 : 2005 (6) SCC 478 :2005 (3) KLT 1042 : ILR 2005 (4) Ker. 1 : AIR 2005 SC 3575 Lok Adalat, its benefits, Award and its finality has been extensively discussed. 17. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: 1. In view of the unambiguous language of S.21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and as such it is executable by that Court. 2. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a Civil Court and Criminal Court. 3. There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family Court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. 4. Even if a matter is referred by a Criminal Court under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a Civil Court.” ``` Crl.R.P.No.1123/2014 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` 11. In the light of the exposition of law, the revision petition is only to be disposed of, recording the award passed by the Lok Adalat and reserving the right of the respondents 3 to 5 to execute the award as provided under the Act. The respondents 3 to 5 cannot aspire to prosecute this revision petition after the passing of the award, which is only to be closed. Resultantly, the revision petition is disposed of, by recording the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 12.11.2022 and leaving it open to the respondents 3 to 5 to execute the award, in accordance with law. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/10.10.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge