S C SOOD vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

S.P.GARG, J.

1.Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 03.06.2014 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Crl.A. 5/2014 whereby the appellate court declined to proceed with disposal of the appeal due to settlement arrived at between the

parties before Lok Adalat. The petition is contested by the respondent No.2 (hereinafter as ‘respondent’).

2.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Indisputably, the respondent was convicted for commission of offence

punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by an order dated 23.08.2013. By an order dated 26.08.2013, the respondent was

sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay compensation of twice the cheque amount i.e. `2,50,000/- within a period of 30 days to the

complainant.

3.The respondent challenged the conviction before the appellate court. By an order dated 07.10.2013, the substantive sentence was suspended

pending appeal on deposit of the amount equivalent to the value of the cheque. On 21.10.2013, the respondent sought permission from the appellate

court to deposit the said amount in three installments which was allowed. The respondent did not comply with the orders.

4.On 28.02.2014, the respondent’s counsel urged the court to refer the matter to National Lok Adalat for settlement. It was opposed by the

petitioner primarily because the respondent had no sincere intention to resolve it. It was noted in the order that the respondent’s grievance could

be taken care of by holding that if the matter remained unsettled before Lok Adalat, every effort would be made to dispose of the appeal at the

earliest. The matter was referred to National Lok Adalat scheduled for 12.04.2014.

5.On 12.04.2014, statements of both the parties were recorded. The respondent agreed to pay `50,000/- on 25.04.2014 and the balance amount

`75,000/- on 15.05.2014. The petitioner gave a statement that in case the payments were made on the said two dates by the respondent, he would

compound the matter and make necessary statement before the court. Accordingly, taking into consideration the statements of both the parties, the

matter was sent back to the court concerned for 25.04.2014.

6.On that day, respondent’s counsel informed that only `19,000/- could be arranged against `50,000/- to be paid in terms of the Lok Adalat

settlement. The petitioner declined to accept part payment and asked for the complete payment of `50,000/-. The matter was listed for 03.05.2014

for that purpose. Record reveals that the respondent failed to comply with the orders. The appeal was accordingly listed for disposal. By the

impugned order, the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal holding that the settlement dated 12.04.2014 being an award of the Lok Adalat is to

be taken as ‘decree’ capable of execution by civil court. Aggrieved by the said findings, the present revision petition has been filed. Â

7.Perusal of the record reveals that from the very inception, the petitioner was not interested for reference of the matter for settlement to Lok Adalat

as he was apprehensive of the respondent’s intention not to make the payment; it happened true. Despite recording statements before the

National Lok Adalat where he agreed to pay certain payments on two dates, the respondent without any plausible reason avoided to make the said

payment. Till date, the petitioner has been deprived of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court despite the respondent being held guilty

for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,

8.The impugned order cannot be sustained as the National Lok Adalat had not passed any ‘award’ on the basis of the statements recorded by

both the parties. Lok Adalat had only recorded the terms and conditions whereby the matter was to be compounded before the court concerned on

making payment of the amount stated therein. Only on making the said payments as agreed before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner was to compound

the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act before the appellate court. Since, no such payment was made by the respondent in terms

of the statements, the matter could not be compounded and the appeal preferred by the respondent remained alive before the appellate court. The

respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Firstly, he did not honour the statement made by him before the Lok Adalat on

12.04.2014 and secondly, by the impugned order, he was given the benefit of acquittal under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act without deciding

the appeal preferred by the respondent. In the absence of any payment, the learned Appellate Court could not have dismissed the appeal giving

clean chit to the respondent for commission of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act for which he was duly convicted by the

Trial Court. Since the payments as agreed were not paid by the respondent, the Appellate Court should have disposed of the appeal filed by the

respondent on merits.

9.‘K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon vs. C.D.Shaji’, (2011) INSC 1159 relied upon in the impugned judgment is of no assistance to the respondent.Â

In the said proceedings, there was no ‘conviction’ under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. In that case, the matter was referred to the

Lok Adalat to explore possibility of settlement. Lok Adalat after recording the settlement he passed an ‘award’. It was of course to be

treated as ‘decree’ for the purpose of execution. The position is not so in the present proceedings. After the conviction recorded by the

Trial Court, the respondent was to compound the offence by settlement on making payment of the settled amount and only in that eventuality the

learned appellate court could have disposed of the appeal as settled / compounded. Since the appeal / offence was not ‘compounded’ by the

complainant / petitioner, there was no occasion for the learned appellate court to dispose of the said appeal asking the complainant to approach civil

court for execution of the ‘award’ of the Lok Adalat which was deemed to be a ‘decree’ capable of execution by civil court.

10.In the light of above discussion, the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed.

11.The appellate court shall proceed with the appeal on merits. The parties shall appear before the appellate court on 23rd May, 2018.    Â

Â