AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar, J
Impugned in this writ petition is an award passed by National Lok Adalat presided over by Chief Judicial Magistrate Chadoora, whereby, the petitioner-accused in FIR No.76 of 2013 registered in Police Station, Nowgam Under Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1977 (hereafter for short "the Public Gambling Act") has been convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.4000/-. The impugned award has been assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that the Lok Adalat constituted under the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act, 1997 (hereafter for short 'the Legal Services Authorities Act') has no jurisdiction to convict an accused in a criminal offence and impose the punishment of fine, that too on the basis of so called confessional statement made by the accused.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the only question that begs determination in this case is; Whether an accused person can be convicted by the Lok Adalat constituted under the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act, 1997?
From the scheme of the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act, 1997 read with relevant provisions of the Public Gambling Act, it is abundantly clear that the offences under the Public Gambling Act are not compoundable and, therefore, cannot be subject to amicable settlement by the Lok Adalat. The Legal Services Authorities Act has been enacted to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.
Chapter V of the Legal Services Authorities Act deals with Lok Adalats. Under Section 18(4) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the Lok Adalats have been conferred the jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized.
The Lok Adalat has, however, no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to any offence not compoundable under any law. For facility of reference Section 18(4) may be reproduced as under:-
"18(4) Lok Adalats shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized.
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to any offence not compoundable under any law."
From the proviso appended to Sub Section (4) (supra), it is abundantly clear that the Lok Adalat does not have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence which is not compoundable under any law. The offence under the Public Gambling Act is not compoundable. That being the position, the Lok Adalat does not have any jurisdiction to compound such offences even with the consent of the parties. That apart, the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is to settle the matters amicably and with the consent of the parties. The jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat with respect to the offence is only limited to the settlement of the offences which are compoundable under law and even in such cases the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to convict the accused and award punishment including the punishment of fine. Needless to say that award of Lok Adalat is neither verdict nor any opinion arrived at by any decision making process. Further more, in terms of Section 345 Sub Section (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Samvat 1989, the composition of an offence has the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. It is the acquittal and not conviction that shall follow composition of offence.
That being the legal position, the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat is not sustainable in law. It is for the reason that Lok Adalat does not have any power to convict the accused either on the basis of confessional statement or otherwise. It has only power to compound the offence provided the same is so provided under any law. The composition of offence would result in acquittal of the accused and not conviction. Imposition of fine is a punishment and, therefore, cannot be imposed while compounding an offence.
I am aware that this petition has been filed after a huge delay. The impugned award was passed by the National Lok Adalat on 13.11.2013 and this petition has been filed in the year 2017. The petitioner was probably prompted to file this petition when he realized that his conviction by the Lok Adalat is likely to come in his way when he applies for passport, employment or for holding some post in private or public sector.
Be that as it may, since the award passed by the National Lok Adalat is without the jurisdiction and, therefore, nullity in law, as such, I am inclined to accept this petition and quash the award of National Lok Adalat impugned in this petition. Ordered accordingly.
The file which upon passing of the impugned award of Lok Adalat has been consigned to record shall be retrieved and placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chadoora for further proceedings.
Disposed of.