Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— his is a revision against order dated 29.1.1999 passed by the District Forum, Khushinagar in the Complaint Case No. 20/88.

2. The facts of the case, as far as they are relevant for decision in this revision are that on 26.11.1998 a judgment was passed in Complaint Case No. 227/98. The compliance of this judgment was not done by the opposite party and hence an execution application was moved. No objection was filed to the execution application by the opposite party inspite of notice which was sent to him. The learned District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act directed each of the opposite parties to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for execution of this order. A warrant was issued returnable by 20.2.1999. Aggrieved against this order, the applicant has filed the present revision.

3. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the present case the learned District Forum could not have passed an ex-parte order without hearing the opposite parties, judgment debtors. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on the case of M/s. Vikmans & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar, I (1992) CPJ 386, decided by State Commission, Delhi. A perusal of the judgment goes to show that under Section 27 conviction can only be done after giving a reasonable opportunity to defend a person and if any opportunity is not given then the trial is not properly held. Reference to Section 17 has also been made. In this case the following observations were made in para 5 : 3

“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, t 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 did not do so. Thus, it acted illegally in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Consequently, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.”

4. No doubt it is true that no procedure has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act for proceeding in a matter where execution application is moved under Section 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 25 of the Act deals with enforcement of order passed by the Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. It says that these orders are to be executed in the same manner as if it was a decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it has been lawful in the event of its inability to execute its last order to the Civil Court. Section 27 deals with the penalties which are inflicted under Consumer Protection Act. This provides that a trader or a person who fails to comply with the orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, shall be punishable for imprisonment which shall be not less than one month but may be extended to three years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 2,000/- and may extend to Rs. 10,000/-.

5. Thus District Forum has been given powers to execute orders passed by it in the manner laid down under Section 25 or