SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Dipak Bhaskar Rane - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Application No.3049 of 2019 With Criminal Application No. 3050-3053 of 2019
Decided On : 12-05-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. B.A. Chavan, Advocate, for the applicant in all matters; Mr. B.V. Virdhe, APP, for the respondent No.1/State in all Matters; Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 in all matters; Mr. N.R. Thorat, Advocate, for the respondent No.3 in all matters

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's invocation of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the orders of the State Commission and District Consumer Forum, emphasizing the failure to follow proper procedure and the undue burden placed on the accused.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - District Consumer Redressal Forum - Section 25, Section 27 - The judgment discusses the challenges to the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court analyzed the simultaneous application of Section 25 and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, the procedure to be adopted, and the compliance of the original award. The court referred to various orders and emphasized the maintainability of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order of taking the original respondent in custody under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Fact of the Case:

The original complainants had deposited money in a Co-operative Society and filed complaint applications under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act when the society failed to repay the amount with interest. The court found that the District Consumer Forum did not follow proper procedure and put undue burden on the accused to prove compliance with the award. The State Commission also failed to consider important aspects of the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Consumer Forum and State Commission did not follow proper procedure and put undue burden on the accused. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the orders of the State Commission and District Consumer Forum, thereby cancelling the bail granted to the applicant and taking him in custody.

Issues: The issues involved the simultaneous application of Section 25 and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, the procedure to be adopted, and the compliance of the original award. The court also considered the failure of the District Consumer Forum and State Commission to follow proper procedure and the undue burden placed on the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Consumer Forum and State Commission did not follow proper procedure and placed undue burden on the accused. It emphasized the maintainability of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order of taking the original respondent in custody under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Final Decision: The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the orders of the State Commission and District Consumer Forum, thereby cancelling the bail granted to the applicant and taking him in custody. The court directed the District Consumer Forum to adopt proper procedure and dispose of all the Execution Proceedings as per the appropriate procedure under Law.

JUDGMENT

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 s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top