Bangalore District Court
Sri. Vijay vs S/O Ramaiah on 24 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2019.
PRESENT
SRI. R. ONKARAPPA, B.Sc,L.L.B.,
LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (CCH-63)
Crl. Appeal No. 2407/2018
APPELLANT:/ Sri. Vijay,
ACCUSED S/o Ramaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No. 115, 1st main, 1st
Cross, Slum board, Opp
Electric transform,
Chikkabommasandra,
Bengaluru North, G.K.V.K.,
Bengaluru-64.
(By Naveen Reddy A R,
Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT:/ Mr. V. Balakrishna,
COMPLAINANT C/o Late Venkatachalaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No. 453, Hesarghatta,
Near Gangamma Town,
Bengaluru-560 064.
JUDGMENT
The present criminal appeal has preferred by the appellant /complainant under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C against the order dated 11.02.2017 passed by the learned XII ACMM, Bengaluru in CC No. 19723/2016, and recall the 2 Crl.A. 2407/2018 NBW and FLW issued in Crl. Misc No. 6539/2017 issued by XII ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. The I.A. No. 1 filed by the appellant under section 5 of Limitation Act seeks condone the delay of 1 year 7 months and 19 days in filing to this appeal.
3. The Factual Matrix which are leads to the disposal of this appeal are, the respondent had filed a case against the appellant herein for alleged offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act before XII ACMM, Bengaluru in CC No. 19723/2016. The learned Magistrate after filing of the joint memo by both the complainant and accused dated 11.02.2017 had passed an order to pay Rs. 5,35,000/- the cheque amount and also Rs. 50,000/- by way of interest and cost of litigation expenses totally Rs. 5,85,000/- as final settlement within a period of 6 months from the date of order, if accused fails to pay the installments amount, the complainant shall recover the said settled amount in accordance with law, the same joint memo has been accepted by the trial court. But on the day of filing of joint memo the complainant/respondent did not accept the same hence he has not signed the joint memo, even in the order sheet 3 Crl.A. 2407/2018 the complainant has not signed, hence he has not accepted the terms and conditions of the joint memo, hence the memo itself not valid even after that the trial court has accepted the joint memo without the knowledge of the appellant and passed an order which the appellant did not know the consequences. The respondent who did not accept the terms and conditions and not even signed the joint memo further has filed a petition before XII ACMM u/s 421 of CRPC in Crl. Misc No. 6539/2017 and got issued non-bailable warrant and FLW against the appellant.
4. Being aggrieved by the said ordered, conviction and sentence passed by the XII ACMM in CC No. 19723/2016 and also in Crl. Misc No. 6539/2017 the appellant preferred this appeal urging that the order passed by the trial court is totally perverse, illegal, unlawful and bad in law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside . That the NBW and FLW issued in Crl. Misc No. 6539/2017 is contrary to facts, materials and evidence placed on records. That the learned magistrate erred in placing much reliance upon the joint memo which is not signed by complainant which is not valid in law 4 Crl.A. 2407/2018 unbelievable, unacceptable and throws great doubt and on many more grounds the appellant prays for allowing of the appeal.
5. Since there is delay in filing of this appeal and this appeal is preferred on the order of the lok adalath, the matter posted for hearing on maintainability of the appeal and lower court records need not to be required.
6. Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the appellant, the appellant did not turned up and address the argument regarding maintainability of the appeal. Perused the records.
7. Under these facts and circumstances, the following points arise for the consideration of this Court:
1. Whether the I.A. No. 1 filed u/s 5 of Limitation Act deserves to be allowed?
2. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable or not?
3. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
POINT No.1 :- Negative.
POINT No.2 :- Not maintainable
5 Crl.A. 2407/2018
POINT No.3 :- As per final order for the
following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 and 2 :- The appellant herein for an order seeking to set aside the order dated 11.02.2017 by the Lok Adalth in CC No. 19723/2016 and recall of the NBW and FLW issued in Crl. Misc No. 6539/2017 by XII ACMM, Bengaluru.
9. In the affidavit enclosed to I.A. No. 1 it contended that, notice of the trial court had not been received by the appellant, since the notice had issued to wrong address where the appellant had already vacated which fact known by the respondent, only to keep the appellant behind bar the respondent filed said case and got issued NBW and FLW against the appellant, hence there is a delay in filing of this appeal. After perusal of the affidavit and evidence that there is no specific reason assigned in the affidavit which is annexed with I.A. No. 1.
When there is no reason specified for delay to prefer this appeal, this court have no power to condone the exorbitant delay for a period of 1 year 7 months and 19 days to prefer this appeal.
6 Crl.A. 2407/2018
10. On the other hand even examine merits of the case, on going through the 1st relief sought by the appellant that, the order passed by the Lok Adalath dated 11.02.2017 has to be set-aside cannot be entertained as provided under section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act.
11. Section 21(2) provides that: "Every award made by the Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against an award. Therefore, an award passed by the Lok Adalath cannot be set- aside in the present appeal.
12. No prima facie to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in respect of issuance of FLW against the appellant as the matter was completely adjudicated before Lok Adalath. In view of the adjudication the trial court rightly issued FLW/NBW against the appellant. Unless set aside the order passed before Lok- adalth why the trial court keep pending the matter in abeyance, without issued the NBW/FLW.
13. Even after examination of the merits of the case, the appeal of the appellant is one that of too 7 Crl.A. 2407/2018 belated. Above all observations I.A. No.1 filed by the appellant under section 5 of Limitation Act is deserves to be rejected. Hence, I answer the above point No. 1 as negative and point No. 2 as not maintainable and proceed to pass the following;
14. POINT NO.3: - In view of the above discussions and my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER I.A. No.1 filed by the appellant under section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby rejected. Consequently appeal filed by the appellant is hereby rejected.
Send the copy of the order to the lower court forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of October, 2019).
(R. ONKARAPPA.) LXII Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE CITY.