JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 26.3.2010 and discharge the petitioner by quashing the proceedings in Cr.C.15/2010 (EP No.6/2010) pending on the file of the IV Addl. District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The primary facts of the case are as under: Execution petition under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act read with Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The complainant is a Doctor. The Complainant has presented the complaint against the accused-judgment debtor. It is alleged that the amount ordered/awarded by the Consumer Forum is Rs.7,50,000/-, interest awarded on principal sum is Rs.2,28,575/-, cost awarded is Rs.2,000/-, the advocate fee awarded is Rs.13,875/-. In all, Rs.9,94,450/- was awarded by the Consumer Forum. This amount was not paid by the accused. Therefore, the complainant-decree holder was constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The accused has preferred this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Consumer Forum is not empowered to try the offence in the absence of notification issued by the Government. In the absence of such notification, the Consumer Forum cannot exercise jurisdiction as a Judicial Magistrate First Class. Even treating the application filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure as complaint for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Consumer Forum is improper. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 4 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that Consumer Forum should comply with section 4(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the validity of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act has been upheld in case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S. PARMJIT SINGH & ORS. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the validity of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act has been upheld in case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S. PARMJIT SINGH & ORS. reported in II (2006) CPJ 6 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Constitutional validity of Section 27, Consumer Protection Act – Scope of provision of Section 27 prior to and after amendment – By Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, as contained in Section 23 of Amending Act, proviso which was struck down as unconstitutional by High Court, has been omitted – sub-section (2) introduced which provides District Forum or State Commission or National Commission as case may be shall have power of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of offences under Act – On such conferment of powers, District Forum or State Commission or National Commission, on whom powers are conferred, shall be deemed to be Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Code – Amendments effective from 15.3.2003 – Controversy becomes academic – Provision not violative of Article 21 of Constitution – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 27 (as amended), 23 proviso (as amended by Act 2002)” 7. Consumer Protection Act is a self-contained Code. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is set up. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principle of natural justice and have been empowered to give reliefs of a specific nature and to award appropriate compensation to consumers. Penalising for non-compliance of the order given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided. Strict rules of evidence and procedure are not contemplated. This being the position, execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was treated as complaint filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Consumer Forum, which has the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that on the date of presentation of execution petition itself, provisions of Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure and contravention of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act were mentioned in the complaint. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that on the date of presentation of execution petition itself, provisions of Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure and contravention of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act were mentioned in the complaint. 8. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under: “Penalties – (1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (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 (2 of 1974). (3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the unreported ruling in case of V. ANIL KUMAR V/S. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU in WRIT PETITION No. 34217/2007, wherein at paragraphs 28 to 33 the High Court of Judicature at Madras has observed as under: “28. But in the case on hand, the District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Commission have already been constituted by necessary notifications issued by the State Government under Section 9(a) and (b) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the Consumer Forums have been duly established by the State Government by necessary Notifications. But in the case on hand, the District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Commission have already been constituted by necessary notifications issued by the State Government under Section 9(a) and (b) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the Consumer Forums have been duly established by the State Government by necessary Notifications. After such establishment, the powers of a Judicial Magistrate have been conferred upon them by the statute itself under Section 27(2) of the Act. Therefore, the question of the State Government issuing a second Notification either under Section 11 (1) or under Section 16(1) or under Section 32(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise. To hold that a notification by the State Government under Section 11(1) or 16(1) or 32(1) of the Code is necessary, to enable the Forums to exercise Magisterial powers, would tantamount to the imposition of an artificial restriction that a Consumer Forum has to be constituted by 2 notifications, one under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act and another under section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This could never have been the intention of the legislature, when Amendment Act 62 of 2002 was passed, conferring magisterial powers upon the Consumer Forums. 29. Move over, Section 27(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, opens with, “nonobstante clause”. The section confers power of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class upon the Consumer Forums, “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”. Therefore, there is no need for the Consumer Forums to look forward to a Notification from the State Government for exercising those powers, when the statute has clothed these Forums with such powers by operation of law. 30. The purport of Section 27 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, is to create a legal fiction. This is made clear by the use of the expression “shall be deemed to be a judicial Magistrate of First Class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure”. No Court of a Judicial Magistrate is sought to be established afresh, by section 27 (2). As seen from the earlier discussion, a notification under Section 11(1) of the Code may be necessary for establishing a new Court of Judicial Magistrate in an area other than a metropolitan area. But such a notification is not necessary when an Act of Parliament confers powers upon an existing Forum, by a deeming provision. 31. As seen from the earlier discussion, a notification under Section 11(1) of the Code may be necessary for establishing a new Court of Judicial Magistrate in an area other than a metropolitan area. But such a notification is not necessary when an Act of Parliament confers powers upon an existing Forum, by a deeming provision. 31. The above legal position could be easily understood, if we look at similar provisions under other enactments such as The Family Courts Act, 1984. Section 7 (2) of the said Act confers upon the Family courts constituted under the Act, the powers of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No Notification appears to have been issued by the State Governments under section 11(1) or 16(1) of the Code to constitute these Family Courts, as Courts of Judicial Magistrates. Therefore it is clear that when the statute confers certain powers upon an existing Forum, the powers so conferred get activated instantaneously, unless a contrary intention appears from the Statute itself. 32. The legal position that the Consumer Forums need not look forward to the High Court or the State Government, to issue any notifications, to enable them to exercise the powers under Section 27(2), has been clarified by the National Commission, by a letter dated 27.05.2003. The relevant portion of the said letter, issued by Justice D.P. Wadhwa (retired Judge of the Supreme Court) as President of the National Commission, reads as follows: “Re.Section 27: Sub Section (1) creates no difficulty. Sub-section (2) has to be read as under: Power of Judicial Magistrate of the first class for trial of offences under the Act conferred as first portion of this sub-section says “that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure” a forum shall have the power of Judicial Magistrate of the First class. These powers thus immediately stand conferred and we have not to go either to High Court or State Government. When powers of a Judicial Magistrate of First class, as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, stand conferred then proceedings are to be conducted under the provisions of this Code, like any other Judicial Magistrate will do. When a Consumer Forum thus has the power of Judicial Magistrate after coming into force of the amended Section, it has to proceed with the trial of the offence as provided under the said Code. When a Consumer Forum thus has the power of Judicial Magistrate after coming into force of the amended Section, it has to proceed with the trial of the offence as provided under the said Code. Subsection (3) provides that offences may be tried summarily and that would mean as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure.” The above clarification, issued by the National Commission, also has statutory force by virtue of Regulation 24 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Section 30-A of the Consumer Protection Act, empowers the National Commission to issue Regulations to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the power so conferred under Section 30-A, the National consumer Commission has issued, `The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005’, with the previous approval of the Central Government. Regulation 24 of the said Regulations entitles the National Commission to issue practice directions from time to time for the proper conduct of the cases. The said Regulation 24 reads as follows: “24. Practice Directions.- The National Commission shall be entitled to issue practice directions from time to time as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the cases before Consumer Forum including prescribing forms for complaints, notices, returns, certificate to be issued to the collector and the like”. Therefore, the clarification issued by the National Consumer Commission about the scope of Section 27 (2) of the Act may be construed as a practice direction issued under Regulation 24. 33. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that since the Parliament has conferred powers of Judicial Magistrates of First Class upon the District Forums, the State Commissions and National Commission constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is no necessity for these Forums and Commissions to await a Notification either from the State Government or form the High Courts, to enable them to exercise those powers of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Section 27 (2) has not merely sanctioned a service connection, but also activated the same instantaneously with effect from 15.03.2003. Section 27 (2) has not merely sanctioned a service connection, but also activated the same instantaneously with effect from 15.03.2003. Hence, the District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are entitled to exercise all the powers of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class under the Code and the apprehension of the petitioner (or of the Police department) that a Notification from the State Government is necessary, is not well founded. It is made clear that the Police is obliged to execute the warrants issued by the District Forums, State Commission and National Commission in the same manner as they execute warrants issued by competent Courts of Judicial Magistrates. These Forums would have the power to compel the police to act on the warrants issued and recalled and punishments imposed lawfully in exercise of the powers conferred under section 27(2) of the Act read with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with the above clarifications. No Costs.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision in case of M/S SHANTHINIKETAN HOUSING FOUNDATION V/S. BRIG (RETD) J N DEVAIAH & ORS reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2589, wherein this Hon’ble Court has held that the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended by Act 62/2002 are hereby dismissed, upholding the vires of the said provision. 11. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for imposing penalties for noncompliance of the orders of the Consumer Forum. In case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S. PARMJIT SINGH & ORS. reported in II (2006) CPJ 6(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that District Forum or State Commission or National Commission shall have power of Judicial Magistrate First Class. 12. An exhaustive commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Second Edition 2009, Volume-I, published by LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, at page Nos. 1381 and 1382, it is mentioned that Section 27 – Consumer Forums to have magisterial power (sub-Section (2)). Sub-section (2) opens with a non-obstante clause, giving the provision of this sub-section an overriding effect over the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 1381 and 1382, it is mentioned that Section 27 – Consumer Forums to have magisterial power (sub-Section (2)). Sub-section (2) opens with a non-obstante clause, giving the provision of this sub-section an overriding effect over the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For the purpose of trial of the offence contemplated under sub-section (1), the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall exercise the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Since sub-section (2) shall operate, irrespective of anything contrary, contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such powers have to be conferred on the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, by the State Government independent of section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by resorting to sub-section (2) of this section itself. On such powers being conferred on these Forums, each of such Forums shall be deemed to be a judicial Magistrate of the first class for purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since such powers have to be conferred on the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission by virtue of the offices or official titles of such Forums, it is implied that the conferment of such powers need not be by name. 13. It is undisputed fact that most of the presiding officers of the Consumer Forums are retired District Judges. Normally, notification will be issued by the State Government under Section 11(1), 16(1) and 32(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for a civil judge to exercise power of Judicial Magistrate First Class. In this case, the presiding officers of the Consumer Forum are all retired District and Sessions Judges. It has to be borne in mind that the presiding officers of the Consumer Forum are all well experienced judicial officer who have done the judicial function of holding trials. Section 27 (2) of Consumer Protection Act begins with non-obstante clause. Therefore, it conveys dispensation of notification which is to be issued by the procedural law. In my view, there is no hindrance for the Consumer Forum to act as Judicial Magistrate First Class in the absence of notification under the procedural law. Issuance of notification is only incidental when the parent act grants power to the presiding officers of the Consumer Forum to act as Judicial Magistrate First Class. In my view, there is no hindrance for the Consumer Forum to act as Judicial Magistrate First Class in the absence of notification under the procedural law. Issuance of notification is only incidental when the parent act grants power to the presiding officers of the Consumer Forum to act as Judicial Magistrate First Class. A non-obstante clause is a scheme formulated by the legislative body of the State to overrule the other enactment. In this case, even in the absence of notification under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, the power conferred under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to exercise powers of Magistrate is bound to succeed in spite of the obstacles. Relying on the ruling of V. ANIL KUMAR V/S. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU IN WRIT PETITION No. 34217/2007 and also the commentary cited supra and also for the reasons mentioned above, in my view, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of specific notification, the Consumer Forum cannot exercise the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class. 14. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint is not in prescribed form and requirement of Section 4 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied. Anyone can set the criminal law into motion and no specific authorisation is necessary to file the complaint. The complaint is made with the object that the Magistrate should take action. No form is prescribed. The ends of justice should not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere technicalities even when the case is proved to the hilt and the accused is found otherwise guilty. There is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the rules framed thereunder, how a criminal complaint has to be drafted. What has to be seen is whether the entire substance of the complaint prima facie makes out an offence said to have been committed, or whether there is a ground to presume on the entire reading of the substance of the complaint that the offence is likely to have been committed. The complainant need not to be the aggrieved person, any person having knowledge of the offence can file complaint. The complainant need not to be the aggrieved person, any person having knowledge of the offence can file complaint. Further, the complaint need not be filed by a person having personal knowledge of the facts of the case or by an eyewitness. Every tiny fact need not be pleaded. The administration of criminal law is more a matter of substance than of form and should not be allowed to be befogged by hair-splitting technicalities. It is now well-settled beyond cavil that a complaint in a criminal case is not to be an encyclopaedia of all the facts. 15. Section 4 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “All the offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.” Normally, a criminal case is dealt in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. But this is subject to any special enactment for the time being in force, regulating the manner of investigation, enquiry or otherwise dealing with such offences. While interpreting the other powers under the code, it should be subject to such special enactment. In interpreting the scope of such statute the dominant purpose underlying the statute had to be borne in mind. In the instant case, the object of Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to the consumer disputes and it is a quasi-judicial machinery. The Consumer Protection Act is a self-contained code. Regulation 24 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, entitles the National Commission to issue practice directions from time to time for proper conduct of the case. Such being the case, it is difficult to accept the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner that a separate complaint should be filed before the Consumer Forum for contravention of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 16. It is undisputed fact that the Consumer Forum on the basis of the order passed in C.C.1000/2009 has held that the judgment debtor-accused is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,94,450/- to the complainant. The accused has not complied with the order of the Consumer Forum. 16. It is undisputed fact that the Consumer Forum on the basis of the order passed in C.C.1000/2009 has held that the judgment debtor-accused is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,94,450/- to the complainant. The accused has not complied with the order of the Consumer Forum. Therefore, the Consumer Forum in order to implement the provisions of Consumer Protection Act invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and converted the execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure as complaint. Section 27 (3) of Consumer Protection Act provides that all the offence under the Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. This being the legal position, strict procedure of law may not be required to implement the object and scheme of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Consumer Forum has not followed Section 4 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not come to his aid. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cognizance has been taken. In C.C.1000/2009 Consumer Forum has directed the accused to pay Rs. 9,94,450/-to the complainant. The accused has not complied with the same. There is averment in the execution petition cum complaint to the effect that the accused has not paid the amount of Rs.9,94,450/- to the complainant and thereby he has alleged to have contravened Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Forum has taken judicial note of the same, which is sufficient for the purpose of taking cognizance of crime. 17. Taking into consideration of all aspects of the case and also the material placed on record, in my view, this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings or to set aside impugned order dated 26.3.2010. This Criminal petition is devoid of merits. The observations made herein shall not influence the Consumer Forum while deciding the main matter. 18. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER This Criminal Petition is dismissed. Office is directed to return the lower Court records.