Held:
The burden of proof; of non compliance of order of consumer forum, can not be on the accused. [Para No.9]
When Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act gives power of a Magistrate to the District Consumer Forum and the procedure that is required to be adopted by the Forum for the action under Section 27 of the Act is summary trial as contemplated under Section 260 to 262 of Cr.P.C., then unless there would have been a proper separation of trial, steps could not have been taken only against one accused.[Para No.10]
Order quashed.
Bombay High Court
Dipak Bhaskar Rane
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra
Decided on 12/05/2020