BALAKRISHNAN v. T.K.AYURVEDIC PHARMACY

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33798/2006 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: P2: COPY OF THE AWARD IN LOK ADALATH CASE NO. AP6/04 (CC 903/02) DTD. 27/04/04. COPY OF THE AWARD IN LOK ADALATH CASE AP 8/04 (CC 905/02) DTD. 27/04/04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33798 of 2006 W -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.Nos. 903/2002 and 905/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against respondents 1 and 2, the accused. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for an order modifying Exhibits P1 and P2 awards passed by third respondent, the Secretary, Koyilandy Taluk District Legal Services Authority, so as to make the award executable under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and in default to sentence first respondent.

Under Exhibit P1 award, third respondent, in respect of the cheque involved in C.C.No.903/2002, directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay Rs.60,000/- within three months, making it clear that on WPC 33798/06 2 failure, petitioner is entitled to the cheque amount from 15.7.2002 and costs. Exhibit P2 award was passed in respect of the cheque involved in C.C.No.905/2002 directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay Rs.36,000/- within three months, failing which, petitioner is entitled to the entire cheque amount with admissible interest from 3.8.2002 and costs.

Case of the petitioner is that as both the cases are taken cognizance by the Magistrate and referred to Lok Adalath, Exhibits P1 and P2 awards are to be treated as orders of the criminal court as provided under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and if so, the amount fixed under the awards is to be treated as compensation, permitting the petitioner to realise the amount as penalty. It is contended that award in a criminal case could only be treated as an order of the criminal court and not as a decree of the civil court. WPC 33798/06 3

As there was confusion with regard to the procedure adopted by the Magistrate and the Legal Services Authority, records were called for. Records reveal that both C.C.No.903/2002 and C.C. No.905/2002 were disposed on 27.4.2004 accepting the compromise petitions filed by the petitioner. Said petitions are seen filed under Section 257 of Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that disputes were settled before the Adalath and therefore, the case is to be closed. Learned Magistrate, accepting the compromise petitions, acquitted the accused under Section 257 of Code of Criminal Procedure in both the cases. Therefore, as far as C.C.Nos.903/ 2002 and 905/2002 are concerned, it is clear that accepting the compromise petitions filed by the petitioner himself under Section 257 of Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the matter has been settled, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Therefore, both the cases have ended in acquittal by separate orders dated 27.4.2004. If that be so, WPC 33798/06 4 Exhibits P1 and P2 cannot be treated as orders of the criminal court as canvassed by the petitioner.

Records received from Koyilandy Taluk Legal Services Authority establish that petitioner, along with respondents, filed a joint petition before the Chairman, Koyilandy Taluk Legal Services Committee to the effect that C.C.Nos.903/2002 and 905/2002 may be treated as a case of civil nature and award be passed. It is accepting the said prayer, third respondent took cognizance of the petitions and passed Exhibits P1 and P2 awards. Therefore, Exhibits P1 and P2 awards were not passed in the criminal cases pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate, but on the petitions filed before Koyilandy Taluk Legal Services Committee. If that be so, when the case is taken cognizance by the Lok Adalath, third respondent is competent to pass an award as provided under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act. When awards were passed in the petitions, treating the claims as claims of WPC 33798/06 5 civil nature, the awards so passed could only be treated as decrees of the civil court as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 21. Exhibits P1 and P2 awards, therefore, are to be treated as decrees of the civil court for the purpose of execution of the awards. The awards provide for payment of the amount within three months, making it clear that on failure to pay the same, petitioner is entitled to realise the amount covered by the cheques from the respective dates. Petitioner is also entitled to interest from that dates. Petitioner is at liberty to execute Exhibits P1 and P2 awards, as if they are the decrees passed by the civil court as provided under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Petition is disposed. 8th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)