HEMANTKUMAR PREM Vs. ARUN PARSHURAM SURYAWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Adv.M.H.Oak for the appellant and Adv. P. Chavan for the respondent.

(2.) THE District Consumer Forum allowed the consumer complaints and directed the Credit Society to refund the amount invested in fixed deposit with interest. The said order achieved finality. Thereafter, execution application came to be filed. Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was invoked and the judgmend debtor is sent to jail to undergo imprisonment of one month. In addition to the order of imprisonment a fine of Rs. 5,000 is also imposed on the judgment debtor, who in Consumer Law in an accused. The correctness of the order of imprisonment is challenged by the judgment debtor/accused. The similar kind of issue is involved in companion appeal Nos. 1056 to 1060/07. Therefore, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by common order.

(3.) SUB -section 2 of Section 27 is brough on statute book by amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15.3.2003. We are inclined to reproduce Sub -sections (2) and (3) of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under: "Sub -section (2): Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Sub -section (3): All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be."