State of Karnataka Vs. Parmjit Singh and ors.

State of Karnataka vs Parmjit Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Mar 02, 2006

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/678102

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/678102
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Arijit Pasayat and; Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 02, 2006
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3482 and 3483 of 2000
Subject: Consumer;Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 27 - Constitutionality - Validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenged - Section 27 does not provide any procedure for trial and hence was pleaded to be violative of Article 21 - High Court struck down proviso to Section 27 stating it to be violative o...

Key legal issue: Consumer;Constitution
Acts & sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 27; Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 23 and 23(2); Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Karnataka

Advocate Harish Chandra, Sr. Adv.,; Sanjay R. Hegde,; A. Rohen Singh

Respondent

Parmjit Singh and ors.

Advocate E.M.S. Anam, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 27; Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 23 and 23(2); Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 4; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860; Constitution of India - Articles 20 and 21
Reported In: AIR2006SC1408; 2006(2)AWC1692(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(3)CHN132; II(2006)CPJ6(SC); [2006(2)JCR330(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC386; 2006(3)KarLJ353; 2006(3)SCALE163; (2006)4SCC49

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1998 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 10363 of 1994

Excerpt

.....to apex court - amendment in act brought about by act of 2003 - omitted proviso which was struck down - and reenacted section confirming power of judicial magistrate of first class for the trial of offences under the act on district forum or the state commission or the national commission as the case may be - hence, no unconstitutionality - appeal disposed of. - prevention of corruption act, 1947[c.a. no. 2/1947]section 6;[altamas kabir & markandey katju, jj] sanction for prosecution - held, a trial without a valid sanction, where one is necessary under section 6, is a trial without jurisdiction, a valid sanction is required when the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. when the offence is alleged to have been committed, the accused was a public servant, but by the time the court takes cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by him he had ceased to be a public servant, no sanction would be necessary for taking cognizance of the offence against him. -- section 197: sanction for prosecution - held, a trial without a valid sanction, where one is necessary under section 6, is a trial without jurisdiction, a valid sanction is required when the court is called upon to take cognizance of the offence. when the offence is alleged to have been committed, the accused was a public servant, but by the time the court takes cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by him he had ceased to be a public servant, no sanction would be necessary for taking cognizance of the offence against him.-- west bengal criminal law amendment (special courts) act, 1949. section 6; whether a special judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the west bengal criminal law amendment (special courts) act, 1949, can take cognizance of an offence against a member of the state legislative assembly when he had ceased to be a m.l.a., though the offence was alleged to have been committed when he was a sitting m.l.a. ? held, no. the accused..........validity of section 27 of the consumer protection act. 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') one of the two appeals is by the state of karnatka and the other by the onion of india. the basis of the challenge was that the district and the state commission and national commission and the forum created under the act have been clothed with blanket powers to pass orders including an order of civil imprisonment for the breach that may be committed by the party against whom the order is passed under the act. as section 27 does not prescribe any procedure for trial and, therefore, it was braved that it should be declared as un- constitutional, being violative of article 21 of the constitutional of india. 1950 (in short the constitution). the high court held that an offence has been created without prescribing any procedure for the forums or the commissions created under the act to impose the punishment provided in section 27. therefore, it was of the view that the proviso to section 27, as it stood then, authorised the forums and the commissions to impose a punishment without providing any procedure, resulting in (deprivation of rights conferred upon the persons under articles 20 and 21 of the constitution and, therefore, the same was liable to be struck down. being unconstitutional. it was. however, held that the striking of the proviso to section 27 did not render the whole provision un-constitutional. finally, it was observed that the proviso to section-27 was violative of the fundamental rights, as enshrined under articles 20 and 21 of the constitution and, thus, was liable to be quashed, it was further held that but for the proviso, there was no un-constitutionality in the main provision. it was observed that the offence created and penalties provided under section 27 can be tried and imposed only in accordance with the observations made in the judgment relating to the trial of offences under the indian penal code. 1860 (in short 'the tpc'} and other laws,.....

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat. J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a writ petition which was filed challenging validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') One of the two appeals is by the State of Karnatka and the other by the Onion of India. The basis of the challenge was that the District and the State Commission and National Commission and the Forum created under the Act have been clothed with blanket powers to pass orders including an order of civil imprisonment for the breach that may be committed by the party against whom the order is passed under the Act. As Section 27 does not prescribe any procedure for trial and, therefore, it was Braved that it should be declared as un- constitutional, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitutional of India. 1950 (in short the Constitution). The High Court held that an offence has been created without prescribing any procedure for the Forums or the Commissions created under the Act to impose the punishment provided in Section 27. Therefore, it was of the view that the proviso to Section 27, as it stood then, authorised the Forums and the Commissions to impose a punishment without providing any procedure, resulting in (deprivation of rights conferred upon the persons under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, the same was liable to be struck down. being unconstitutional. It was. however, held that the striking of the proviso to Section 27 did not render the whole provision un-constitutional. Finally, it was observed that the proviso to Section-27 was violative of the fundamental rights, as enshrined under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution and, thus, was liable to be quashed, It was further held that but for the proviso, there was no un-constitutionality in the main provision. It was observed that the offence created and penalties provided under Section 27 can be tried and imposed only in accordance with the observations made in the judgment relating to the trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short 'the TPC'} and other laws, as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in short 'the Code'). It was held that by filing a complaint before the criminal court in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the offence created and the penalty Provided under Section 27 can be tried and imposed.

2. The State of Karnataka and the Onion of India have questioned the correctness of the view expressed by the High Court. Learned Counsel for the Onion of India and the State of Karnataka contended that after having been held that the main part of Section 27 was not unconstitutional, the proviso which only permitted imposition of lesser fine or sentence of imprisonment, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be held to be unconstitutional. It was submitted that the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission were conferred with a power to sentence any person who has failed or omitted to comply with the order passed by the District Forum or two Commissions. Therefore, the proviso, in no way, dilutes the power for such imposition or levy. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted that the questions have really become academic after the amendment to Section 27.

3. Section 27, prior to its amendment in 2003 read as follows:

Penalties: Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both:Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both, for a term lesser than the minimum term and the amount lesser than the minimum amount, specified in this section.

After amendment, Section 27 reads as follows:

1. Penalties-. (1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made (or the complainant) fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader of person (or complainant) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.

4. It is to be noted that by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (62 of 2002), as contained in Section 23 of the Amending Act, the. proviso which was struck down as un-constitutional by the High Court has been omitted. Sub-Section (2) has been introduced which provides that the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class for the trial of offences under the Act and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class of the Code. The amendments have been made effective with effect from 15.03.2003. The controversy has, therefore, become academic. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of but without any order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2006 Same Parties State of Karnataka vs Parmjit Singh and ors. Same Subject Consumer;Constitution Same Judge Arijit Pasayat and; Tarun Chatterjee, JJ. Acts & Sections Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 27; Consumer Protect...

Consumer;Constitution