The main legal point established in the judgment is that Lok Adalaths have no adjudicatory or judicial functions, and their functions relate purely to conciliation. The court emphasized that only the award passed by the Lok Adalath is enforceable under law and not the order passed by the Lok Adalath.

JUDGMENT :

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Perused the records.

3. The respondent herein presented five private complaints against the petitioner alleging dishonour of various cheques issued by the petitioner as detailed in the chart here below :

(1)Total deposit made in High Court from 30.4.15 and on 8.6.15 Rs.15 lakh only

(2) Total amount deposited before the trial court on 23.7.14 in all five cases Rs.2,50,000/-

(3) Amount paid to the complainant on 20.5.14 Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only)

3. During the pendency of these proceedings, parties were referred to Lok Adalath for resolution of the dispute. Both the parties submitted joint memo before the Lok Adalath duly signed by their Advocates. Based on the said memos, Lok Adalath passed orders convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to pay Rs.10.00 lakh (C.C.No.9418/2011), Rs.10.00 lakh (C.C.No.9416/2011), Rs.2.00 lakh (C.C.No.9414/2011), Rs.1.00 lakh (C.C.No.9415/2011) and Rs.2.00 lakh (C.C.No.9417/2011) to the complainant on or before 20.05.2014 in the respective complaints, failing which, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each case.

4. Referring to the Order Sheet maintained by the trial court, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the proceedings before the Lok Adalath disclose that the Lok Adalath did not consist of requisite quorum. The order sheets indicates that only judicial member has subscribed his signature making it evident that the conciliator did not participate in the Lok Adalath. As such, the orders passed by the Lok Adalath are non est in the eye of law and the same are unenforceable. Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner/accused has paid substantial amount as per the above orders, yet, some of the cheques produced by the complainant were not drawn in the name of the respondent/complainant, as such, the complaints filed before the Court were not maintainable and under the said circumstance, the orders passed by the Lok Adalath are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the petitioner was assisted by advocate. Joint memos were signed not only by the petitioner but also his Advocate. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was mislead to sign the joint memos cannot be accepted. Further, the award passed by the Lok Adalath is duly acted upon. In terms of the said award, substantial amount has been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, at this length of time, he cannot be heard to say that the award passed by the Lok Adalath suffers from error warranting interference by this Court.

6. Con