Point of Law:Lok Adalat Award – Fine Levy Warrant - For recovery of the fine by a criminal Court, the enabling provision is Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court passing the order of sentence to issue Fine Levy Warrant for recovery of the fine amount, if the offender fails to pay the fine

ORDER :

Heard both side.

The above revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the order of the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 25.05.2017 in C.C.No.31119/2014.

2. In C.C.No.31119/2014, respondent was the complainant and the petitioner was the accused. Respondent prosecuted the petitioner in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. When the matter was pending before the Trial Court, on the request of the parties, the Court referred the matter to the Lok-adalat. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a settlement before lok-adalat on 14.02.2015.

4. Admitting the settlement entered into between the parties, the lok-adalat passed the following award:

“Accused shall pay amount of Rs.27,35,279/-(Rupees twenty seven lakh thirty five thousand and two hundred and seventy nine only) on or before 15.06.2015 towards the entire amount with respect to seven cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. In default to pay, complainant is at liberty to file a recovery proceedings as if fine. Accordingly, case is closed. Accused is discharged for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act.”

5. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.3851/2015 before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the lokadalath award dated 14.02.2015. This Court, vide detailed order dated 22.02.2017, dismissed the said petition on merits. That order has attained finality.

6. Even after dismissal of Crl.P.No.3851/2015, petitioner did not pay the agreed amount. Therefore, the respondent sought to execute the lokadalath award before the Trial Court. On his application, the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 issued Fine Levy Warrant against the petitioner.

7. This matter was already once disposed of by order dated 16.01.2021. On the application of the petitioner seeking opportunity of hearing was recalled and the matter was heard again.

8. Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an award passed by the lok-adalat is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court by virtue of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. Therefore, the only remedy of the respondent was to execute the said award by filing petition under Order XXI of CPC.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the cases filed in the lok-adalat awards passed in his favour he has filed the execution petitions before the Civil Courts and has submitted the copies of the said proceedings.

10. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments:

(i) K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon vs. C.D. Shaji, (2012) 2 SCC 51

(ii) Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, (2018) 13 SCC 480

11. Per contra, Sri. B.A.Chandrashekar learned counsel for the respondent justifies the impugned order on the ground that in the agreement as well as in the award of the lokadalath there is a specific clause enabling the respondent to enforce the award and seek recovery of the amount due as fine. He further submits that Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act or the judgment in Govindan Kutty Menon’s case do not bar the respondent to recover the amount due under the award following the procedure prescribed under the criminal procedure code. He further submits that such interpretation of the judgment in Govindan Kutty Menon’s case is incorrect. He submits that, since the lok-adalat award has attained finality, the petitioner cannot go behind that to claim that the respondent cannot recover the amount as fine.

12. Having regard to the rival contentions the questions that arise for consideration are “whether Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act or the judgment in Govindan Kutty Menon’s case bar the respondent from seeking recovery of the dues as fine and the Trial Court from issuing process for recovery of the same.” ?

13. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act reads as follows:

“21. Award of Lok Adalat.—