The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that a District Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest in an execution proceeding filed under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission clarified that Section 25 is purely civil in nature, providing for attachment of property and recovery through the Collector, while Section 27 is punitive and requires a separate criminal proceeding with due process. The impugned order issuing non-bailable warrants against judgment debtors was set aside as a miscarriage of justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Mr. Biswajit Paul, was one of eight opposite parties in a consumer complaint (C.C. Case No. 362 of 2016) filed by Smt. Afsari Bano before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF), Kolkata Unit-I. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices related to deposit schemes operated by the appellant's companies. The DCDRF allowed the complaint on 27 April 2018, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 32,790, pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 for harassment, and litigation costs of Rs. 3,000 within 30 days, with interest at 8% per annum on the entire sum until full realization.
Key Facts
- 27 April 2018: DCDRF passed final order in C.C. No. 362/2016 awarding Rs. 32,790 (refund), Rs. 5,000 (compensation), Rs. 3,000 (costs) with 8% interest
- 2018: Complainant filed Execution Application No. 187 of 2018 under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- The execution application contained composite prayers seeking both attachment of property (under Section 25) and punishment by imprisonment (under Section 27)
- 27 November 2018: DCDRF passed Order No. 2 issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest against Judgment Debtors 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (including the appellant), fixing 7 January 2019 for execution/return of warrants
- The appellant contends he was present on 27 November 2018 but the order records his absence
- The appellant had prayed for referring the execution case to the One Man Committee constituted by the Calcutta High Court in related public interest litigations (W.P. 30617(W)/2015, W.P. 1668(W)/2015, W.P. 825(W)/2016) for liquidation of assets and recovery of depositors' funds
Procedural History
- 27 April 2018: Final order in C.C. No. 362/2016 by DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-I
- 2018: Execution Case No. 187/2018 filed under Section 25 CPA
- 27 November 2018: Impugned order issuing non-bailable warrants passed by DCDRF
- 2018: First Appeal No. SC/19/A/1013/2018 filed before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal under Section 27A CPA
- 17 May 2024: Order No. 15 expunged proforma Respondents 2 to 8 from the appeal
- 7 September 2026: Judgment delivered by the State Commission
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (i) setting aside the impugned order dated 27 November 2018 passed in Execution Case No. 187 of 2018; (ii) referring the execution case to the One Man Committee constituted by the Calcutta High Court for execution of the judgment dated 27 April 2018.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a District Consumer Forum can issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest in an execution proceeding filed under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (2) Whether Sections 25 and 27 of the Act can be clubbed together in a single proceeding for simultaneous civil execution and criminal punishment; (3) Whether the direct issuance of a non-bailable warrant without following criminal procedure under Section 27 violates due process.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant argued that the execution application was filed under Section 25 CPA, which is a civil execution provision providing only for attachment of property and recovery through the Collector as arrears of land revenue. Section 25 contains no provision for issuance of arrest warrants. The decree holder had improperly clubbed prayers under Sections 25 and 27 in a single proceeding, creating a hybrid proceeding unknown to law. Even if Section 27 were invoked, the Forum could not directly issue a non-bailable warrant without initiating a proper criminal proceeding, recording cogent reasons, and following the summary trial procedure prescribed for summons cases under the CrPC (now BNSS). The appellant also contended he was present on the date of hearing but the order falsely recorded his absence.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the executing Forum cannot go behind the decree and that the execution proceeding was maintainable in its present form. The respondent reiterated the case history and proceedings before the lower Forum, contending that the Forum had jurisdiction to enforce its order through coercive measures including arrest warrants.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that the two provisions are fundamentally different in nature and application:
"Section 25 is civil in nature and it prescribes the manner in which the order passed by the Forum or Commission in a consumer dispute case is to be executed, whereas Section 27 of the Act is punitive in nature. The provision of this Section is attracted when the party against whom the award has been passed i.e. the Judgement debtor fails to comply with the order."
Section 25 analysis: The Commission examined all three sub-sections. Sub-sections (1) and (2) deal with attachment and sale of property for non-compliance of interim orders - not applicable here as the order was final. Sub-section (3) provides for issuance of a certificate to the Collector for recovery as arrears of land revenue. Nowhere does Section 25 empower the Forum to issue a warrant of arrest, bailable or non-bailable.
Section 27 analysis: This section creates an offence for non-compliance with Forum orders, punishable with imprisonment (1 month to 3 years) or fine (Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 10,000) or both. It confers the power of a Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial of offences, which shall be tried summarily. Section 27 is not an execution provision; it is a penal provision requiring a separate criminal proceeding.
The Commission held that clubbing Sections 25 and 27 in a single execution application "has made the entire proceeding a mess and to be vitiated raising questions about maintainability of the execution case in its present form and prayers."
Even assuming the warrant was issued under Section 27, the Commission found the procedure fatally flawed. Summary trials under the CrPC (now BNSS) proceed as summons cases where summons are issued first; warrants may issue only in exceptional cases with cogent reasons recorded in the order. The impugned order recorded no reasons, no finding that the judgment debtor was a habitual offender, or a flight risk, or that the amounts involved justified such coercive measure.
"Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of the execution case this Commission is of opinion that issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest amounts to miscarriage of justice. From this point of view the impugned order suffer infirmities and material irregularities and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside."
The Commission declined to rule on the appellant's prayer for referral to the One Man Committee, leaving that for the Forum to decide on remand.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed in part on contest without costs. The impugned order dated 27 November 2018 passed in Execution Case No. 187 of 2018 (arising out of C.C. Case No. 362 of 2016) by the DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-I, was set aside. The matter was remitted to the DCDRC, Kolkata Unit-I, with a direction to proceed further in accordance with law after giving both parties an opportunity to take appropriate steps and be heard. Copies of the order were directed to be supplied to parties free of cost.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 25 Is Exclusively Civil - No Arrest Power
Practitioners must recognize that Section 25 CPA 1986 provides only three civil execution mechanisms: (a) attachment and sale of property for interim orders (sub-sections 1-2); (b) certificate to Collector for recovery as land revenue arrears for final orders (sub-section 3). No warrant of arrest - bailable or non-bailable - can issue under Section 25. If a Forum issues an arrest warrant in a Section 25 execution, the order is ultra vires and liable to be set aside.
Sections 25 and 27 Cannot Be Clubbed in One Proceeding
- Section 25 = civil execution (decree holder initiates)
- Section 27 = criminal prosecution (complaint by aggrieved party/state)
- Mixing them creates a procedurally invalid hybrid
- Actionable takeaway: File separate proceedings: execution application under Section 25 for recovery; criminal complaint under Section 27 for punishment. Do not combine prayers.
Non-Bailable Warrants Require Criminal Due Process Even Under Section 27
If a Forum exercises Section 27 powers:
- Must initiate a separate criminal proceeding (not an execution application)
- Must follow summary trial procedure (summons case framework)
- Summons first, warrant only exceptionally with recorded cogent reasons
- Factors justifying warrant: habitual offender, flight risk, gravity of non-compliance, amount involved
- Blanket non-bailable warrants against multiple judgment debtors without individualized reasons are per se illegal
Procedural Irregularity = Miscarriage of Justice
The Commission treated the procedural violation as a miscarriage of justice warranting interference under appellate jurisdiction. Lawyers should challenge execution orders that:
- Issue arrest warrants under Section 25
- Club Sections 25 and 27 without separation
- Issue non-bailable warrants without recorded reasons
- Record false absence of a party who was present
Remand Preserves Forum's Jurisdiction
The Commission set aside the order but did not substitute its own execution directions. It remitted for fresh proceedings, preserving the Forum's primary jurisdiction. Practitioners should frame remand prayers carefully - seek setting aside of illegal orders, not appellate execution.
