IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DAT••ED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIO N N 35j2009 BETWEEN: MADHUSUDHAN S/O,KAREPPA BILGI, AGE. 36 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/OHARUGERI,TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. CHANNAPPA S/O.BHIMAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, AGE. 40 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.MUGALKOD,TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 3. BHIMAPPA S/O.VITHAPPA © kappa BANSHANKARI © PUJERI, AGE. 29 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.MUGALKOD,TQ. RAIBAG. DIST. BELGAUM. 4. RAVINDRA S/0. BABURAO HOLLAKKAR, AGE. MAJOR,R/O. HARUGERI. TQ. RAIBAG,DIST. BELGAUM. 2 5. UMESH 5/0. LAGAMANNA PAflAN, AGE. 40 YEARS,OCC. SERVICE, RIO. HARUGERI,TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. 6. ADIL S/O.HYDERSHA MAKHAMDAR, AGE. 54 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE, RiO.HARUGERI,TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. I.K. KABBUR & PRASHANT HOSAMANI,ADV.) AND: THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADDL. S.P.P.) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1) OF CR.P.C. TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2009 ON ThE FILE OF III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM IN CRL.A. NO. 51/2009. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION Pt I iTION COMING ON FOR ADMISION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE ThE FOLLOWING: 4 k-i S 3 ORDER This petition is directed against the Judgment in CrLA. 51/2009 dated 16.07.2009 on the file of III AddI. Sessions Judge, Beigaum, setting aside the order dated 23.12.2008 of the learned J.M.F.C. Raibag in C.C. No. 644/2007 dIrecting the trial Court to retrial the petitioners herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Addi. S.P.P. 3. The contextual facts are: The petitioners were arraigned and put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, 109, 353 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C. in C.C. No. 644/2007 on the allegation made by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, that the petitioners had illegally tampered electric supply metre and committed theft of electridty. In his report he alleged when he had gone to the premises on 15.03.2007, where such crime 4 was committed, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him and his team members, resulting in injuries to his person. On this basis the prosecution alleged petitioners had committed violence with common object to prevent the Complainant — Assistant Executive Engineer and his team members from discharging official duties. 4. Petitioners were put to trial, but In the meantime case was referred to Lok Adalath presided over by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Raibagh and Sri. A.K. Chougule, Advocate Conciliator, Raibag. The accused were directed to appear before the Lok Adalat on 23.12.2008 and they complied with the directions. It is alleged the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Raibagh and Sri. A.K. Chougule, Advocate Conciliator, Raibag, persuaded them to plead guilty on the assurance they will be granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioners had no choice but to yield to such persuasion and pleaded guilty. The members of the Lok Adaiath A- 5 passed the order on 23.12.2008 itself convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 506, 109, 353 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C. and granted them benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and terminated the prosecution. 5. Against such Judgment of the Lok Adaiath the state was in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge invoking SectIon 377 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of the State Government and set aside the order passed by Lok Adalath granting to the petitioners benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and has directed the trial Court to conduct denovo trial against them. Assailing it the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that learned Sessions Judge could not have interfered with the order regarding sentence passed by the trial Court. He relied on the provisions of Section 19 and 21(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act. He seeks to set 6 aside the impugned order and to confirm the order passed in the Lok Adalath. 7. The learned AddI. SPP opposed all grounds. 8. It is pertinent to notice the impugned order dated 23.12.2008 is passed in Lod Adalath sitting presided over by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Raibagh and Sri. A.K. Chougule, Advocate Conciliator, Raibag. In such sitting they have accepted the plea of guilt tendered by the petitioners and proceeded to consider nature of punishment to be imposed. In their wisdom the Bench of Lok Adalath has granted them benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, the question therefore, is whether such an order is permissible in law. 9. It is not in dispute the petitioners were facing trial before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate in which they have pleaded not guilty, it is not known at whose Instance the case was referred to Lok Adaiath but It is averred that the Complainant, who has sought prosecution 7 of the petitioners nor other victims of alleged assault were summoned or notified of the Lok Adalath sitting. They were thus not heard. 10. In this fact situation we have to refer to the conspectus of the provisions Section 19 and 20 of the Lok Adalath Act. Section 20 reads thus: “Section 20-. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. - (1) Where in any case referred to in dause (i) ofsub-section (5) of section 19 - (i) (a) the parties thereofagree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and If such court is prima fade satisfied that there are chances ofsuch settlement; or (II) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-dause (b) of dause (i) or cause (II) by such court except after •1 8 giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.” It makes very clear Lok Adaiath can take cognizance of the case in the circumstances enumerated therein and proviso to Section 20, makes it further clear no case shall be referred to Lok Adaiath under sub-clause (b) of Clause (I) and (ii) by such court except after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. It refers to the parties to the us and the persons who are in the party array. In criminal case undoubtedly If offence Is to be compounded or plea bargaining Is to be permitted, It is not only state which initiated prosecution but the victim I Complainant and the accused are necessary parties to be heard, as referred to in proviso to Section 20 of the Lok Adalath Act. 11. On fact there is no dispute that neither the Complainant nor other victims on whose report the prosecution was initiated were notified of reference of the case to the Lok Adaiath nor they were summoned. 1 9 Therefore, if there was any request made by the accused, who are petitioners herein, right course for the learned jurisdictional Magistrate on whose file case was pending tried, was to notify the victims and ensure their presence In the Lok Adalath. It is matter of record that Members of the Lok Adalath have assumed to themselves the jurisdiction of conducting trial in a criminal case for offences punishable under the IPC, which jurisdiction is not conferred on the Lok Adalath. Of course, if parties willingly offer to compound the offence such request could be entertained provided the offences are compoundable in terms of SectIon 320 of Cr.P.C. It Is seen no application was filed before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate on whose file the case was pending seeking permission to compound the offence for which the petitioners were charged, nor there was application to permit plea bargain. The Complainant’s presence was not secured. 12. It must further be notIced that among charges raised principal charge against the petitioners was for the I0 offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, which was not compoundable. Petitioners had to be subjected to trial as warrant case. Therefore, Section 240 of Cr.P.C. applied and the accused were required to be put to trial. Even if the accused had pleaded guilty for plea bargaining, then conviction on plea of guilt was permissible under Section 241 of Cr.P.C. only by the judicial Magistrate empowered to accept such plea of guilt and empowered to pass consequential sentence. Lok Adalath presided over by one of the judidal Officer who may or may not be jurisdictional Magistrate on whose file the case was pending trial and the Conciliator, had no jurisdiction to frame charge in the sitting of Lok Adaiath. They had no competence to record plea and they had no competence to sit in Judgment as to the nature of punishment to be imposed even if the accused had pleaded guilty. It is only the jurisdictional Magistrate referred to in Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., who has conferred with the jurisdiction to try the offender for the offence punishable under Sections of Indian Penal Code or any law for time being in force. S. It 13. For these reasons the impugned Judgment passed by the Lok Adalath was therefore, impermissible in law. The learned Sessions Judge was right in setting aside such an order and directing retrial of the petitioners. Regarding the contention of the petitioners’ counsel, the petitioners are not interested in continuing to face trial and they wanted to give quitus to such proceedings by pleading guilty, it must be noticed the main ground Itself is that they were persuaded by the Bench before Lok Adalath Sitting and it was not of their free will, such plea was not acceptable. This is not a ground to hold that impugned order is sustainable, which Is otherwise found to be Illegal. 14. In the result I am satisfied the petition must fail. However, it Is necessary to pass the following order: ORDER The revision petition is disposed of. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned learned jurisdictional Magistfate, who shall: - A S a C’) U, at’ &o8tIfl S SW? N 7 a a 12 a’ a 521 i