Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 480
2008 (2) ALD (Cri.) 570 (AP)
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad — Appellant
Vs.
Basireddy Vema Reddy — Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.1725 of 2002
Decided on : 10-07-2008
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondent: Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, for Sri M.Prasada Rao.
Headnote:
Penal Code – Section 354 – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 320 – Equations – Whether the Lok Adalat can be equated to Court referred to sub- section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C – Whether an offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, though at the stage of P.R.C., can be compounded by a Court presided over by a Magistrate; even assuming that the answer to the first issue is in affirmative – Held, Apropos the issue as to whether the case exclusively triable by a Court of Session can be referred to Lok Adalat, even at the stage of PRC, by the Magistrate concerned, it is to be noted that, as already discussed in the first issue, Lok Adalat is not a Court – On the other hand, it is only an ADR mechanism, which has been created and recognized by the Statute i.e., Act 1987, subject to the limited powers vested with it, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act – As Court pointed out, clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act provides that any case pending before any Court can be referred to Lok Adalat for settlement of the matter – With this explicit provision under law, there cannot be any doubt as regards the power to refer the matter by any Court, at any stage, for amicable settlement outside the Court – Court feel it necessary to put on record as a word of caution that the competent Courts, which have been dealing with any matter falling within the ambit of Section 320 Cr.P.C., shall have to record composition on an application made by the parties, subject to its satisfaction, instead of sending the matters for reference to Lok Adalat – Criminal Revision Dismissed.
This matter is before us, on a comprehensive reference by a learned single Judge of this Court, from which the following issues can be made out.
(1) . Whether the Lok Adalat can be equated to 'Court' referred to sub- section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.?
(2) . Whether an offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, though at the stage of P.R.C., can be compounded by a Court presided over by a Magistrate; even assuming that the answer to the first issue is in affirmative?
2. The facts, in brief, that led to the present reference, by the learned Single Judge, for better appreciation, are extracted hereunder: -
Accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (fore brevity "I.P.C.,") and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.40 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, and was pending. At that stage, at the instance of one of the parties, the matter had been referred to Lok Adalat, where the matter was compromised and accordingly, an award was passed recording the compromise.
3. Thereupon, the State, represented by learned Public Prosecutor, filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the award, dated 21.07.2001, passed by the Lok Adalat, in the said P.R.C.No.40 of 2001, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, on the following grounds; Firstly; the offence under Section 354 I.P.C., is triable by Court of Sessions and the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to record the order of acquittal under Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C; and Secondly; the Magistrate ought to have forwarded the order passed by the Lok Adalat and the case papers to the Court, which has got jurisdiction, for recording acquittal.
4. Upon these grounds being raised in the Criminal Revision Case, the learned Single Judge, having heard the matter, formulated the above two issues, in a comprehensive manner, for determination by a Division Bench, to have an authoritative pronouncement. Thus, the present Criminal Revision Case is before us.
5. ISSUE NO.1:- So far as this first issue is concerned, for better appreciation, we have to look into the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended by Act, 59 of 1994 and Act, 37 of 2002 (for brevity 'the Act').
6. In Section 2 (aaa) of the Act, 'Court' is defined as a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi- judicial functions.
7. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract Section 2 of the Act, to the extent relevant, which is thus:
"2. Definitions:--
(1)..................
(a)....................
(aa)...................
(aaa) "Court" means a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted
under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(b)...................
(bb).................
(c)....................
8. The expression 'Lok Adalat' is defined under Chapter VI of the Act, which deals with the organization of Lok Adalats, cognizance of cases, awards and powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat.
9. Here, it is necessary to look into Section 22 of the Act, which deals with the powers of 'Lok Adalat' or 'Permanent Lok Adalat', which reads thus: -
"Powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat: - The Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: -
(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the requisitioning of any publ
