Ratios:
a. Once an award is passed by Lok Adalat on any matter, the trial Court becomes functus officio.
b. When the complaint under Sec.138 of N.I. Act is settled by Lok Adalat, the order of Lok Adalat can only be executed as if it is an order of civil Court and Magistrate cannot proceed with complaint.

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order, dated 111. 2007 made in C.M.P.No.4686 of 2007 in C.A.No.167 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, 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 under Section 20 (1) (i) (b), 20 (1) (ii) of Legal Services Authorities Act (Act.39/1987).

3. Both the parties were present before Lok Adalat and as per the award, they agreed for the settlement and accordingly, the petitioner / accused, agreed to pay Rs.3,75,000/-(Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only) to the respondent herein on or before 03.09.2007. It was signed by the respondent / complainant, petitioners / accused and their respective counsel. In view of the compromise arrived at between both the parties, the amount payable by the accused / respondent was fixed at Rs.3,75,000/-towards full quit of the claim and that the petitioners herein agreed to pay the above said amount on or before 03.09.2007 and accordingly, the award was passed and placed before the Judicial Magistrate Court for further orders.

4. It is seen that on 03.03.2007, the award was passed by the learned Judge and two other members by affixing their signatures, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by his Judgment, dated 110. 2007, based on the award held that the petitioners herein guilty and convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, accordingly, imposed sentence of one year simple imprisonment and directed the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners / accused preferred appeal in C.S.No.167 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Salem.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, Salem, by order, dated 111. 2007 suspended the sentence of imprisonment till 112. 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 the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the respondent / complainant was entitled to execute the award like a decree of the civil court, however, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate, by his Judgment has found the petitioners guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also convicted and sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-.

7. Section 21 (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as follows :

"Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award."

8. In the instant case, admittedly after the case was referred to Lok Adalat, there was a consensus between the parties, accordingly, the petitioners herein had agreed to