Mr. R.N. Mittal, J. — This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 9.7.91 by which the appellant has been convicted u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year.

2. Briefly the fact are that Rakesh Kumar filed a complaint against M/s. Vikmans for recovery of Rs. 52,250/- as damages before the District Forum. The complaint was accepted by the Forum and a decree for recovery of Rs. 57,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 3.2.89 till the date of payment, was passed against M/s. Vikmans. The respondent was further directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of the order. The respondent did not pay the amount. Consequently the complainant filed an application dated 5.6.90 before the District Forum against the Manish Chabbra Prop, of M/s. Vikmans to the effect that the amount of decree had not been paid by M/s. Vikmans and consequently action be taken against him, as he was its proprietor. Later he filed another application dated 5.11.90, before the Forum that Sh. Chabbra has avoiding service and action be taken against him. The notice of the application was issued to Manish Chabbra. He did not appear before the Forum. The Forum vide order dated 9.7.91 convicted Shri Chabbra under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year as stated above. Bailable warrants for arrest were also issued against him by the Forum. He has come up in appeal against the said order the Commission.

3. It is contended by the appellant that before passing the impugned order he was not given any opportunity to defend himself, to which he was entitled. Thus the impugned order was liable to be set-aside on this short ground.

4. We have duly considered the argument and find substance therein. We have perused the interim orders. On the complaint dated 5.6.90 of the respondent a notice was issued by the Forum to the appellant for 17.1.91. The notice was received back unserved. Again notices were ordered to be issued to the appellant on 8.11.90 for 17.1.91. On 17.1.91 the President was on leave and the case was adjourned to 15.5.91 by the two Members of the Forum. On 15.5.91 the Forum could not hear the case as the President and one Member had since retired and their vacancies had not been filed. The case was consequently adjourned to 24.12.91 by the remaining one Member. The complainant moved an application dated 4.6.91. praying that the date of the case be pre-poned. On the same date no case was pre-poned and it was fixed for 21.6.91. However, no notice was issued by the Forum to the appellant to appear on 21.6.91. He did not appear before the Forum on any of the hearings. It is not clear from the orders that he had been served for any date. In the circumstances it is to be seen, whether the trial of the appellant is a proper trial.

5. The Proceedings under Section 27 of the Act are criminal in nature. It was the duty of the Forum to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. It is true that no procedure has been prescribed in the Act for trial of the cases under Section 27. However, the Forum could adopt any procedure to deal with the case provided it was fair and just for the appellant. It is well-settled that if a person is being tried for an offence, which prescribes a sentence of imprisonment or fine he should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He cannot be sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay fine without affording such an opportunity. It is also well-settled that an accused cannot be convicted in- absentia. Therefore, it was the duty of the Forum to secure the presence of the appellant before an action could be taken against him. If his presence could not be secured by summons, it should have been secured by issuing bailable warrants. If after service of the warrants he absented himself non-bailable warrants could have been issued against him. In the present case the learned Forum d