Allowed

State of Karnataka v. Ramanna @ Bar Ramanna

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021WP/46820/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the reference of a non-compoundable offence case to a Lok Adalat and its subsequent determination. The Court held that Lok Adalats lack jurisdiction over non-compoundable offences under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and quashed both the referral order and the award.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of reference and award of the Lok Adalat dated 11.04.2014 were quashed.

State of Karnataka Vs Ramanna @ Bar Ramanna — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.46820/2016 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AKKUR POLICE STATION CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 571 201 …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶11

AND :

¶12

RAMANNA @ BAR RAMANNA S/O GIRIGOWDA @ VENKATAGIRIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O AKKURU HOSAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 201 …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.PRASHANTH P.N. AMICUS CURIAE)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.272/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAPATNA AT ANNEXURE – C TO W.P. ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.82/2008 REGISTERED BY AKKUR POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATNA TALUK REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.No.46820/2016

O R D E R

“Whether the Court can refer a case relating to non-compoundable offence to Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine such case”? are the questions involved in this case.

¶20

The respondent was facing trial in C.C.No.272/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channapatna for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Akkur Police in Crime No.82/2008 of their police station.

¶21

For the purpose of convenience, the respondent will be referred to as accused henceforth.

¶22

The charge against the accused was that on 12.04.2008 at 8:30 p.m., he was found in illegal possession of liquor worth Rs.1,500/- for the purpose of sale and the said contraband liquor was seized. Annexure – ‘A’ is first information report, Annexure – ‘B’ is the charge sheet and Annexure – ‘C’ is the copy of the order sheet in the said case.

¶23

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶24

¶25

On 11.04.2014, the Trial Court by the impugned order referred the case to the

¶26

Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat by the impugned award dated 11.04.2014 determined the said case holding that the accused admitted the guilt. Despite the opposition of the public prosecutor to adjudicate the matter by the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Excise Act. Further, by the impugned award, the Lok Adalat released the accused on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on execution of personal bond of Rs.2,000/-.

¶27

Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred Crl.A.No.33/2014 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. Though the Appellate Court held that the order of reference and award of the Lok Adalat were contrary to Sections 20 and 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 dismissed the appeal on the technical ground that Section 21(2) of the Act bars such appeal.

¶28

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶29

¶30

Reiterating the grounds of the petition, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP submits that the impugned order and award are violative of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments:

¶31

(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha¹

¶32

(ii) Urmila Masomat v. State of Bihar²

¶33

Learned Amicus Curiae submits that even though Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to determine non-compoundable offence, the alleged admission of guilt before Lok Adalat shall not prejudice the defence of the accused in trial. He further submits that the trial Court shall not be biased by the alleged admission.

¶34

Which matter can be referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat has jurisdiction over which matters is enumerated in Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. For the purpose of this petition, Sections 19(1) and 19(5) of the Act are relevant.

¶35

“19. Organization of Lok Adalats.― (1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the

¶36

1 (2008) 7 SCC 454

¶37

2 2016 SCC Online Pat 4706

¶38

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶39

¶40

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.

(2) ………………..

(3) ………………..

(4) ………..……….

(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of―

¶45

(i) Any case pending before; or

¶46

(ii) Any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before,

¶47

any court for which the Lok Adalat is organized:

¶48

Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.”

¶49

Reading of the above provisions makes it clear that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction in respect of a case relating to non compoundable offence.

¶50

Section 20 of the Act speaks about cognizance of the cases by Lok Adalats and cases which are fit for reference. For the purpose of this case, Section 20(1)(ii) of the Act is relevant which read as follows:

¶51

“20. Cognizance of Cases by Lok Adalats.― (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19―

¶52

(i) (a) …………………………………………………………

¶53

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶54

¶55

(b) …………………………………………………………

¶56

(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:

¶57

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.”

¶58

Reading of Section 20(1)(ii) of the Act and the proviso to the said section makes it clear that Court can refer a case to Lok Adalat only if the same is appropriate . Again what is appropriate case depends on the fact whether Lok Adalat can take cognizance of such offences and has jurisdiction to decide the same. Proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat over a case relating to a non compoundable offence. Therefore the logic of the law is that a case involving non compoundable offence is inappropriate for reference to Lok Adalat.

¶59

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 40 of the judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’s case referred to supra held that the offence which is non-

¶60

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶61

¶62

compoundable in nature falls outside the jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat.

¶63

In Urmila Masomat’s case referred to supra the Patna High Court held that the Lok Adalat constituted under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act has no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to the offence which is non-compoundable under any law. Therefore the Court cannot refer such cases to Lok Adalat.

¶64

In this case, admittedly, the offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act were non compoundable one. Therefore, the order of reference and determination of the same by the Lok Adalat were contrary to Sections 19 and 20 of the Act.

¶65

The minimum prescribed punishment for the offence under Section 32 of the Excise Act is rigorous imprisonment not less than one year and fine not less than Rs.10,000/- which is extendable upto five years and Rs.50,000/-.

¶66

The minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act is

¶67

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶68

¶69

imprisonment not less than one year and fine not less than Rs.10,000/- which is extendable upto four years and Rs.50,000/-. The Lok Adalat by the impugned award released the accused on probation of good conduct. Thereby, the Lok Adalat dealt with the matter very casually.

¶70

Neither the trial Court nor the Lok Adalat has recorded the admission of the plea of the guilt of the accused as required under the Criminal Procedure Code. Since Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to take cognizance, the alleged plea of guilt before the Lok Adalat has no sanctity in the eye of law.

¶71

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of reference of the Trial Court and award of the Lok Adalat dated 11.04.2014 as per Annexure-C in C.C.No.272/2013 are hereby quashed.

¶72

C.C.No.272/2013 is restored to the file of the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law

¶73

W.P.No.46820/2016

¶74

¶75

uninfluenced by any of the observations made during the course of this order.

¶76

This Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri. P.N.Prashant, learned amicus curiae in the matter. The Registry shall pay him the admissible remuneration.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

State of Karnataka v. Ramanna @ Bar Ramanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Ramanna @ Bar Ramanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M R Ramesh Vs the State

Smt. a. P. Navitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh G Vs Amruthahalli Police Station

Sri Sathish Vs State by Girinagar Ps

R Gopal Krishna Pillai Vs Smt. Vini R Panicker

Sri. Ishwara Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka