DIPAK BHASKAR RANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these applications have been filed invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalgaon in Execution Applications filed by the respondent No.2, in each of the applications, who were the original complainants. It appears that in all five applications i.e. Execution Applications were filed against the present applicant bearing No.EA/09/486 in cc/08/682, EA/09/487 in cc/08/681, EA/09/489 in cc/08/678, EA/09/490 and EA/09/499 in cc/08/677 before the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalgaon under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also stated therein, that it is also under Section 27 of the said Act.

(2.) The original complainant had come with a case, that the present respondent No.3, which is a registered Co-operative Society, was managed by the present applicant and the elected body. The original complainants had contended, that they had deposited amount with the society in Fixed Deposit and upon the maturity of the said deposit the said amount was to be given along with the interest. Even after the maturity, the society did not give the amount to the complainants, and therefore, they had filed complaint applications before the District Consumer Redressal Forum. All the complaints came to be allowed. There were in all 7 opponents/respondents to the original complaint application. All of them were directed to pay the amount under Fixed Deposit along with 9% interest, from the date of the maturity of the deposits till actual realization. Further, the compensation and costs were also awarded. The said amount was to be deposited within one month from the date of the respective orders. It is stated, that when there was no compliance of these orders, which were passed in the original complaint proceedings, the Execution Applications have been filed by all the respective complainants. Initially, summons was issued to the petitioner and it is stated, that even after receiving the same he did not appear, and thereafter, bailable warrant and non bailable warrant has been issued. In fact, all the earlier summons and bailable warrants were not received by the applicant. Later on the complainant provided new and correct address, and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued on 29.11.2018, on the new address, provided by the original complainant. In pursuance to the said non bailable warrant the applicant was taken in custody on 11.12.2018 by Bhusawal Bazarpeth Police Station. Thereafter, when he was produced before the Court, he filed application for cancellation of non bailable warrant. It was allowed by the Consumer Forum and bail was granted to him. Accordingly, he has furnished the surety and personal bond. His plea was recorded on the same date i.e. on 12.12.2018 and then the matter was adjourned for bail of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 13.12.2018 the respondent Nos.4 and 5 furnished bail. Thereafter when the applicant was present on 18.01.2019 before the Forum and his Advocate was absent, Forum asked the applicant to satisfy the Award on that day itself, otherwise he would be sent in jail. It was orally told by him, that the society would be repaying the amount to the depositors as per the recovery from the borrowers and the procedure of auction of the property of two borrowers has been initiated by the society and it has also stated that the complainant can participate in the auction and can get the sale proceeds. However, the Forum refused the oral request of the applicant. When applicant requested for adjournment, since his Advocate was not present, the Forum rejected his request and gave time till 4.00 p.m. only to satisfy the Award. The District Consumer Forum without following due procedure of law cancelled his bail and taken him in Magisterial Custody on 18.01.2018. The applicant preferred revision challenging the said action by the District Consumer Forum in Revision Petition before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Mumbai. Ad interim bail was granted. Further, when the applicant was absent on 27.08.2019, so also the Regular Bench was not available, the board was discharged. The Advocate for the applicant left the commission for his other Court work. But then the Advocate for the respondent i.e. original complainant moved the other Bench in the afternoon session and the said Bench without considering the record passed order, confirming the order of cancellation of bail by the District Consumer Forum. It is stated, that the said order passed by the learned State Commission is illegal, and therefore, it has been challenged in these applications.

(3.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.A. Chavan for applicant, learned APP Mr. B.V. Virdhe for respondent No.1-State, learned Advocate Mr. A.N. Nagargoje for respondent No.2 and learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Thorat for respondent No.3, in all matters.