STATE OF KARNATAKA versus PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 02-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' ..( )i 
STATEOFKARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
PARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 2, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.) 
B 
" 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
'"' 
s. 27, proviso-Proviso struck down by High Court-Judgment of High c 
Court challenged-Meanwhile s.27 amended and proviso omitted-Further, 
District Forum, State Commission and National Commission conferred with 
the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class as under Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973, for trial of offences under the Act-Held, in view of the 
amendments which have been made effective from 15.3.2003, the controversy 
has become academic. 
D 
" 
In the present appeals, judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 
18.12.1998 was challenged by the State of Karnataka and the Union of 
India, whereby the High Court had held that since the proviso to s.27 of 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it stood then, authorized the 
-
Forums and the Commissions to impose a punishment without providing E 
any procedure, the same was liable to be struck down being 
unconstitutional. 
Meanwhile s.27 of the Act has been amended deleting the proviso; 
and the amendments have been made effective from 15.3.2003. 
'" 
F 
- ) 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: By the Consumer Protection (Amendment). Act, 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 G 
~ 
Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the 
-r 
power ofa 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 
873 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 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. The 
amendments have been made effective with effect from 15.3.2003. The 
controversy has, therefore, become academic. [876-E-G) 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3482 of2000. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1998 of the Kamataka 
High Court in W .P. No. 10363 of 1994. 
Harish Chandra, Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh, Anil K. Mishra, 
Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, V.K. Verma and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellant. 
E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment 
D rendered by a Division Bench of the Kamataka 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 Karnataka and the other· by the Union of India. The basis of the 
challenge was that the District and the State Commission and National 
E 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 prayed that it should be declared as unconstitutional, 
being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I 950 (in short 'the 
F 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 
G 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 
H the Constitution and, thus, was liable to be quashed. It was further held that 
.. 
' -
\ J 
STATEOFKARNATAKA v. PARAMJIT SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 
875 
but for the proviso, there wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.