Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suhas Ratnakar Morey, was convicted by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) under Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for non-compliance of an order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The State Commission imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The petitioner challenged this conviction before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, primarily on the ground that the State Commission had not followed the proper procedure for trial of offences under Section 27 of the Act. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which confers upon the State Commission the powers of a Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial of offences under the Act, and mandates that such offences be tried summarily. The court noted that under Section 27(2) and (3), the State Commission is deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate First Class for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and all offences under the Act are to be tried summarily. The High Court observed that the summary trial procedure under Chapter XXI of CrPC, specifically Sections 260 and 262, requires the Magistrate to follow the procedure for trial of summons cases under Chapter XX, except as otherwise provided. Section 254 of CrPC, which applies to summons cases, mandates that if the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all evidence produced in support of the prosecution, and also hear the accused and take all evidence produced in defence. The High Court found that the State Commission had not followed this procedure. The record did not show that the plea of the petitioner was recorded, nor was he given an opportunity to lead defence evidence. The State Commission had straight away passed the order of conviction based on affidavits and documents, without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 254 CrPC. The High Court held that this was a serious procedural irregularity that vitiated the conviction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the State Commission, and remanded the matter back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after following the proper procedure. The court directed the State Commission to afford the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence in defence and to decide the matter afresh.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summary Trial - Consumer Protection Act - Section 27(1) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Sections 260, 262, 254 CrPC - The State Commission, while trying an offence under Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate First Class and must follow the summary trial procedure under Chapter XXI of CrPC. The procedure requires that if the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate must proceed to hear the prosecution and take evidence, and also hear the accused and take his defence evidence under Section 254 CrPC. Failure to do so vitiates the conviction. (Paras 2-5) B) Consumer Law - Penalty Proceedings - Natural Justice - Section 27 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The State Commission cannot convict a person for non-compliance of its order without first recording the plea of the accused and giving him an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. The summary procedure under Section 260 CrPC read with Section 262 CrPC mandates that the procedure for summons cases be followed, which includes the mandatory hearing under Section 254 CrPC. (Paras 3-5) C) Criminal Procedure - Summons Case - Section 254 CrPC - In a summons case, if the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all evidence produced in support of the prosecution, and also hear the accused and take all evidence produced in defence. This requirement is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with even in summary trials under Section 260 CrPC, as Section 262(1) CrPC incorporates the procedure for summons cases. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while trying an offence under Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can convict the accused without following the summary trial procedure under Sections 260, 262 and 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly without recording the plea of the accused and giving him an opportunity to lead defence evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and remanded the matter back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence in defence and following the proper procedure.
Law Points
- Summary trial procedure
- Consumer Protection Act penalty
- Section 27 Consumer Protection Act 1986
- Section 254 CrPC
- Section 262 CrPC
- Section 260 CrPC
- natural justice
- right to be heard
