No one appears for the petitioner. The revision petition as such is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. 2. Even after doing so, and on going through the impugned order passed by the State Commission, it appears that the GPA holder of the appellant made certain defamatory and reckless allegations against the District Forum and the State Commission. This is not the first ever instance where we have noticed that a complainant or an opposite party made defamatory and reckless statement against the functionaries of the Consumer Fora. Lately we find that there is an increased tendency on the part of the certain disgruntled consumers / opposite parties to level wild, reckless and defamatory allegations against the Presidents and Members of the Consumer Fora which may amount to riminal contemptwithin the meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, since the provisions of the said Act do not take into its ambit the proceedings before the Consumer Fora and its functionaries, the President and Members of the Consumer Fora feel handicapped to initiate any action against such persons and such persons go unscathed with impunity. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides punishment of imprisonment in cases where a trader or a person against whom the complaint is made, fails or omits to comply with any order made by the consumer Fora after following the procedure prescribed for the trial of such like offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly section 13(5) of the said Act lays down that every proceedings before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195, and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Even for exercise of the said powers, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to deal with the contemnor of the above kind and for giving punishment under section 228 of the IPC, again the Consumer Fora will have to follow the procedure laid down for trial of a summary case within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. From the above narrated position, it is manifest that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not contain at all or adequate provision for initiating contempt proceedings against a person who has by his wilful act and / or conduct committed the criminal contempt of the Consumer Fora within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Any action taken by a person to scandalise or tend to scandalise or lower down the authority of a Consumer Fora or its functionaries or any attempt to under-mine is not conducive to the functioning of the Consumer Fora in the country, which are almost rendering the justice as Civil Courts in adjudication of the disputes. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission are headed by retired District Judges, High Court Judges and Supreme Court Judge respectively. Half of the Members of the National Commission are former High Court Judges. The authorities of the State owe a duty to ensure that they discharge their functions without fear, favour, affection or ill-will. If the Presidents and Members of the Consumer Fora are maligned and no action is taken against the person who commits such acts of contempt,