*HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.759, 964, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103 & 1104 OF 2010 DATE: 28.06.2010 +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.759 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.964 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.985 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.986 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.987 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.988 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1098 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari. And:
…… Petitioner.
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 4 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1099 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1100 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1101 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1102 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1103 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1104 OF 2010 Between:
#Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
$The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioners in all the matters : Sri M. Haribabu Counsel for the Respondents: -----
Counsel for the 3rd respondent: Public Prosecutor <Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1775(1)
2. (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370
3. 2001 (6) ALD 35 (FB) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.759, 964, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103 & 1104 OF 2010 DATE: 28.06.2010 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.759 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.964 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.985 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.986 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.987 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.988 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1098 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 4 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1099 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1100 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1101 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1102 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1103 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 2 others.
…..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1104 OF 2010 Between:
Venkataraya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor, R.P. Road, Tanuku, West Godavari.
…… Petitioner.
And:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others.
…..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.759, 964, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103 & 1104 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER:
1. This batch of criminal revision petitions are filed by opposite parties against whom the 2nd respondents/complainants obtained orders from the 1st respondent/District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, the District Forum) for payment of maturity value of fixed deposit amounts along with interest and costs. Since the petitioners/opposite parties did not comply with orders of the District Forum, the 2nd respondents/complainants in all these matters filed punishment petitions or penality petitions (P.Ps) before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, the Act) to punish the petitioners/opposite parties for non compliance of orders passed by the District Forum. The District Forum issued notices/summonses to the petitioners/opposite parties in all the respective P.Ps. Since the petitioners did not attend the District Forum even after receipt of notices/summonses, the District Forum issued bailable warrants and thereafter non-bailable warrants and also P.T. Warrants. So the petitioners/opposite parties filed these revision petitions for setting aside orders taking cognizance of P.Ps., and issuing summonses and consequential orders passed against them. Details of C.C.Nos, P.P.Nos., and dates of orders issuing notices to the petitioners/opposite parties in each revision petition are as follows:
Assuming for the sake of argument that these criminal revision petitions filed in the year 2010 are maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C., before this Court, these revision petitions are to be filed within 90 days (which is the prescribed period of limitation for filing revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C) of the respective dates noted in column No.5 of the above tabular form. Hence all these criminal revision petitions are hopelessly barred by limitation and are liable to be dismissed or rejected on this ground alone.
2. Be that as it may, it has to be seen whether against any orders or proceedings in the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act, a criminal revision petition lies under Section 397 Cr.P.C. At this stage itself, it has to be noted that under Section 397 Cr.P.C revision petitions can be entertained not only by the High Court but also by the Sessions Judge of the District in respect of proceedings in any inferior criminal court situated within its or his local jurisdiction.
3. The petitioners’ counsel contended that as per Section 27(2) of the Act, the District Forum is deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the purpose of Cr.P.C. Section 27(2) of the Act reads as follows:
“27 Penalties:
(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.”
The said sub section confers powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on a District Forum, a State Commission, National Commission for trial of offences under that Act and all the above three authorities are deemed to be Judicial Magistrates of the First Class for the purpose of Cr.P.C. At the same time, Sub Section(2) starts with non abstanti clause. The said conferment of powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on a District Forum, a State Commission and the National Commission and also deeming of those three authorities as Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, by virtue of non abstanti clause, are kept outside application of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, it cannot be said a District Forum, a State Commission and the National Commission are subordinate courts or inferior courts to the Sessions Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate of that particular district, as per Section 15 Cr.P.C which prescribes subordination of Judicial Magistrates. If Section 27(2) of the Act is read with Section 15(1) Cr.P.C, then it leads to an anomalous inference to the effect that not only District Forum but also State Commission and also National Commission would become subordinates or inferior courts to the Chief Judicial Magistrates and the Sessions Judge of the District in which they are located. If such argument is to be accepted, then the State Commission at Hyderabad will become subordinate to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad; and the National Commission would be subordinate to Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge at New Delhi. At this stage, it may be noted that District Forum in each district is presided over by a retired District Judge; the State Commission having territorial jurisdiction of the entire state is presided over by a retired Judge of the High Court, and the National Commission having territorial jurisdiction of the entire country is presided over by retired Judge of the Supreme court of India. It is only to avoid the above ridiculous situation by making the above three authorities subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Sessions Judge of the District in which they are located, Section 27(2) of the Act starts with non abstanti clause keeping those three authorities away from regular criminal courts constituted under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, inspite of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission having powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and being deemed to be Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, they are all out of application of other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, this Court finds that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission nor the National Commission is ‘inferior court’ for the purpose of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
4. On the assumption that there is no notification conferring powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on the District Forum, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in order to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act, there must be conferment of powers on the District Forum, because Section 27(2) of the Act contains the clause ‘on such conferment of powers’. Section 27(2) of the Act does not say as to who should confer powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission. First limb of Section 27(2) of the Act reads that the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission shall have the power of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for trial of offences under the Act. It is only thereafter Section 27(2) of the Act speaks that on such conferment of powers, those three authorities on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the purpose of Cr.P.C. In Criminal R.C.No.1103 of 2010, communication dated 21.05.2010 of the Assistant Registrar-cum-P.S., to the President of the State Commission, Hyderabad addressed to M. Haribabu, Advocate, Hyderabad is filed. It is a reply given to the Advocate under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Public Information Officer of the State Commission. It reads that no information is available in that office with regard to conferring of powers of Judicial Magistrates of the First Class to the Presidents of the District Fora to act and try cases under Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in the absence of any such conferment of powers, the 1st respondent/District Forum cannot entertain an application under Section 27 of the Act for punishing the petitioners. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to non applicability of other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by virtue of non abstanti clause with which Section 27(2) of the Act starts with, the question of conferment of powers on the District Forum under Cr.P.C will not arise at all. Further, there is no provision in Cr.P.C for conferment of any powers on Judicial Magistrates of the First Class either by the State Government or by the High Court. Under Section14 Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to control of the High Court defines local limits of the areas from time to time within which the Magistrate appointed under Section 11 or under Section 13 may exercise all or any powers with which they may respectively be invested under Cr.P.C. Section11 Cr.P.C reads as follows:
“11. Courts of Judicial Magistrates:-
(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan area); there shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and of the second class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification specify:
(Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and where any such Special Court is established, no other Court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established)
(2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court.
(3) The High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court.”
It is only under Section 11(3) Cr.P.C, the High Court is given option to confer powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or of the Second Class on any member of the Judicial service of the State functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court. As the matter now stands, there is no separate recruitment of Magistrates and Civil Judges and the selected Magistrates being posted to only criminal courts and the selected civil Judges being posted only to civil courts. Therefore, the question of the High Court conferring powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on any officer of that cadre does not arise at all. By virtue of a Judicial Officer being posted to a particular criminal court by the High Court, the said posting itself empowers that Judicial Officer to exercise powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class he being Presiding Officer of such criminal court. Similarly by virtue of appointment and posting of the President and Members to a District Forum, the said posting itself empowers the District Forum to exercise powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class; and no separate conferment of powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on the District Forum by either State Government or the High Court is contemplated under Section 27(2) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the District Forum is a Forum non-judis for the purpose of Section 27 of the Act.
5. The petitioners’ counsel drew attention of this Court to Section 32 Cr.P.C which deals with mode of conferring powers. Section 32 reads as follows:
“32.Mode of conferring powers:-
(1) In conferring powers under this Code, the High Court or the State Government, as the case may be, may, by order, empower persons specially by name or in virtue of their offices or classes of officials generally by their official titles.
(2) Every such order shall take effect from the date on which it is communicated to the person so empowered.”
Conferment of powers as per the mode enunciated in Section 32 arises only in the case of conferring powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Second Class on member of the Judicial service of the State functioning as Judge in a Civil Court under Section 11(3) Cr.P.C and not in respect of the Judicial Magistrates of the First Class who are posted to criminal courts and who exercise powers of Judicial Magistrates of the First Class by virtue of their posting to criminal court.
6. Further, Section 32 Cr.P.C comes into play not only in the case of conferment of powers to Judicial Magistrates but also in case the State Government requires such conferment in respect of any officers or persons by virtue of their offices or classes of officials generally by their official titles, such as conferment of magisterial powers on other district revenue officials than the Collector as Additional District Magistrates or on Commissioners of Police in Police Commissionrates etc. Section 32 Cr.P.C has no role to play in case of Judicial Magistrates or District Fora, State Commission, and National Commission who exercise the powers of Judicial Magistrates by virtue of their posting to that office/court.
7. At any rate, the entire arguments of the petitioners’ counsel on conferment of powers and entire discussion made by this Court in proceeding paragraphs of this order on conferment of powers, would become redundant in case there is notification by the State Government conferring powers on the District Fora. My search revealed that there is in fact notification issued by the State Government under Section 27(2) of the Act. Department of Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.III), Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 28.02.2005 directing publication of the following notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act, No.68 of 1986), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby confer on the President, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the District Forums in the State of Andhra Pradesh with the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class for the trial of offences under the aforesaid Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the District Forums shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of First Class for purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).”
8. Relying upon Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan[1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that operation of Section 4(2) is attracted to area of investigation, enquiry and trial of offences under special laws. The Supreme Court rendered the said judgment with reference to the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). It is only for keeping proceedings under Section 27 of the Act away from the vicissitudes of regular criminal law and more particularly the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 27-A of the Act starts with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”. Therefore, one cannot import all the provisions of Cr.P.C into the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act before the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission.
9. It is not as if prior to enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the subject was not dealt with under any other laws or by any courts. Regular civil courts and criminal courts have been dealing with consumer affairs qua traders etc. even prior to the year 1986. But, the said enactment came into force “to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer’s disputes and matters connected therewith”. (See preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986).
10. Further, the Act itself provides for remedies against order passed under Section 27. Section 27-A reads as follows:-
“27A. Appeal against order passed under Section 27.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under Section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from-
(a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission;
(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and ( c ) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.
(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission:
Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.”
Thus, when there is right of appeal provided by statute against any order made by the District Forum to the State Commission, any order made by the State Commission to the National Commission and any order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court, the petitioners/opposite parties cannot circumvent law and approach this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C by way of these revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Further, again Section 27A of the Act starts with non abstanti clause to the effect “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974”. Thus, Section 27A of the Act takes away remedies under general criminal law against any order passed by either District Forum or State Commission or National Commission. That apart, Section 27A(2) of the Act specifically debars any other appeal to any court from any order of the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission. Therefore, this Court finds that the present revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C are not maintainable at all. Further, Section 17(1)(b) of the Act empowers State Commission to entertain revisions against orders of any District Forum and Section 21(b) empowers the National Commission to entertain revisions against orders of any State Commission in any Consumer Dispute. In that view of the matter, provisions of Cr.P.C relating to appeals as well as revisions are not applicable to any proceedings before a District Forum or a State Commission or a National Commission under Section 27 of the Act.
11. In that view of the matter, Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited v. State of Maharashtra[2] of the Supreme Court rendered in relation to Sections 482 and 397 Cr.P.C., relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel, has no application herein.
12. In Full Bench Decision of this Court C.V. Ratnam v. Union of India[3], it was held that the Consumer Protection Act is a special law and hence offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act is not governed by Section 5 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the said Full Bench Decision was rendered by this Court prior to introduction of Section 27(2) of the Act which was introduced by the amending Act 62 of 2002 which came into force with effect from 15.03.2003. Section 27(2) as well as Section 27A of the Act make it more explicit that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have no application to proceedings under Section 27 of the Act.
13. Therefore, for the above reasons, this Court is of the view that neither orders of the District Forum issuing notices or summonses to the opposite parties in proceedings under Section 27 of the Act nor any other proceedings connected thereto, can be subject-matter of criminal revision cases filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C
14. In the result, all the criminal revision cases are dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.
Date:28.06.2010.
Gk.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.759, 964, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103 & 1104 of 2010 Date:28.06.2010 Gk.
[1] AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1775(1)
[2] (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370
[3] 2001 (6) ALD 35 (FB)