AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the High Court will be pleased to quash the orders passed by the First Respondent in E.P. No. 6/94 in C.D. No. 51/93 on 3.12.1994. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. V. Rama Sharma, Advocate in both and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 and of Mr. P. Bhaskar Mohan, Advocate for the Respondents 4 to 10 in Crl.P. No. 3809/94 and Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Procedure 3810/94, the Court made the following Order :-
Crl.P. No. 3809/94 is filed to quash the order, dated 3.12.1994 in E.P. No. 5/94 in C.D. No. 84/93 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ''State Commission''). Crl.P. No. 3810/94 is filed to quash the order, dated 3.12.1994 in E.P. No. 6/94 in C.D. No. 51/93 on the file of the state Commission. In both the cases the petitioner is common and is the opposite party No. 8 in the above C.Ds. The State Commission disposed of both the C.Ds. by a common order dated 7.6.1994 against the petitioner and other opposite parties. The claimants in the above C.Ds. filed E.Ps. 5/94 and 6/94 for arrest of the petitioner and other parties u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act''). The State Commission held that the order in the above C.Ds. was not complied with and as there was no stay granted by the National Commission, the State Commission directed the arrest of the petitioner and others and sentenced them for imprisonment for a period of one month and also the pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and issued warrant of arrest of the petitioner. This order is sought to be quashed in these two Criminal Petitions.
The Act provides for right of appeal u/s 19 against the original order passed by the State Commission to the National Commission. Again u/s 21 of the Act a right of revision is provided to the National Commission against any order passed by the State Commission, and the National Commission was empowered to pass appropriate orders. It is therefore clear that the petitioners had a right of appeal against the original order passed in the C.Ds. Admittedly the appeal has not been filed. The petitioners also have not exercised the right of revision against the order passed by way of execution of the order in C.Ds. in the E.Ps. 5/94 & 6/94 in the above C.Ds. It is well settled that when a right of appeal or revision is provided under the Statute, the provision u/s 482 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised by this Court. The petitions are therefore not maintainable.
The counsel for the petitioner in both the cases seeks to raise several objections with regard to vires of the Section 27 of the Act. The petitioner can very well raise these objections before the appellate court or the revisional court i.e., the National Commission. In this view, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed, as not maintainable.