IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2434 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- CRMP.1772 OF 2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. P.JAGADEESH MENON, S/O.PADMANABHA MENON, RESIDING AT A-7, ANJALI GARDENS PALLIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD. 2. PREETHA JAGADEESH MENON, W/O.JAGADEESH MENON, RESIDING AT A-7, ANJALI GARDENS PALLIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, R.SASEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.P.RAGHAVAN PILLAI CIRCLE OFFICE AT KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. 2434 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 27-08-2008 ORDER Petitioners who are the debtors of the first respondent bank challenge Annexure C notice dated 24-6-2008 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad to the 2nd petitioner herein informing her about the filing of a petition by the first respondent under Sec. 14 of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Securitization Act”) for short. According to the petitioner in a non-metropolitan area the District Magistrate alone can be approached for the purpose of obtaining possession of secured asset and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the request for handing over possession of the secured assets to be bank. A learned Single judge of this Court in Solaris Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Bank of Commerce - 2006 (3) KLT Crl.R.P. No. 2434 of 2008 -:2:- 121 - 2006 (3) KLT 121 had taken the view that in a non- Metropolitan area the Chief Judicial Magistrate has got the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Sec. 14 of the Securitization Act. Eventhough the correctness of the said decision was canvassed before a Division Bench in Writ Appeal 482 of 2007 the Division Bench as per the common judgment dated 13-8-2008 has held that the decision reported in 2006 (3) KLT 121 does not require re- consideration. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in the case on hand thus had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation Act it being a non- metropolitan area. Hence the challenge fails and this Revision is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. Crl.R.P. No. 2434 of 2008 -:3:-