TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Salem. 2. It is an admitted fact that the case in C.C. No. 308 of 2006 was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Salem on the complaint given by the respondent herein that the cheque was issued by the second petitioner herein on behalf of the first petitioner as partner of the firm, however, the same was dishonoured by the bank, due to insufficient funds. According to the respondent, after issuance of the legal notice to the petitioner, the complaint was given under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners. During the pendency of the criminal case, at request of both the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. It is seen that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 suspended the sentence of imprisonment till 16.12.2007 and directed the petitioners/accused to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- before the trial court and clarified that in case of failure of depositing the amount, the order of suspension of sentence would stand cancelled automatically and the petitioners were also directed to execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. Aggrieved by which, this criminal revision has been preferred. 6. Mr. Ilanthiraian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to a decree of civil court and therefore, after t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, after the award was passed in the Lok Adalat. 10. By the impugned order, dated 14.11.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, considering the award passed by the Lok Adalat has granted only limited stay, directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- as a condition precedent. 11. As per Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the award passed by a Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie. In this case, it is not in dispute that there was an award passed by the Lok Adalat, based on the consensus arrived at between the parties and for which, the parties and their respective Counsel have signed. Then the award was signed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 21(2) of the Act, no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. 14. In such circumstances, the petitioners could have filed the Execution Petition before the appropriate court, seeking the award amount to be paid with interest and costs. In such circumstances, it is clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate became functus officio, to decide the case after the award passed by Lok Adalat, to convict the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is also not sustainable in law, however, it is clear that the petitioners/accused herein after having given consent for Lok Adalat award being passed and also the award amount agreed to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- on ....