TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned order cannot be sustained as the National Lok Adalat had not passed any ‘award’ on the basis of the statements recorded by both the parties. Lok Adalat had only recorded the terms and conditions whereby the matter was to be compounded before the court concerned on making payment of the amount stated therein. Revision petition allowed. - CRL.REV.P. 478/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - MR. S.P. GARG J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate with Mr. Sankalp Agrawal Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocates. Respondents Throug : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Advocate for R2. S.P. GARG, J. (Oral) 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the order that the respondent s grievance could be taken care of by holding that if the matter remained unsettled before Lok Adalat, every effort would be made to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. The matter was referred to National Lok Adalat scheduled for 12.04.2014. 5. On 12.04.2014, statements of both the parties were recorded. The respondent agreed to pay ₹ 50,000/- on 25.04.2014 and the balance amount ₹ 75,000/- on 15.05.2014. The petitioner gave a statement that in case the payments were made on the said two dates by the respondent, he would compound the matter and make necessary statement before the court. Accordingly, taking into consideration the statements of both the parties, the matter was sent back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Lok Adalat had not passed any award on the basis of the statements recorded by both the parties. Lok Adalat had only recorded the terms and conditions whereby the matter was to be compounded before the court concerned on making payment of the amount stated therein. Only on making the said payments as agreed before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner was to compound the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act before the appellate court. Since, no such payment was made by the respondent in terms of the statements, the matter could not be compounded and the appeal preferred by the respondent remained alive before the appellate court. The respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Firstly, he did not honour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
