HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3004 OF 2010 Date:31.03.2010 Between: Kayagurala Lakshmipathi …..Petitioner And: The State of AP, rep. by PP and 2 others …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3004 OF 2010 ORDER: The 2nd respondent is the Secured Creditor. The 3rd respondent is guarantor. The petitioner is debtor of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent applied under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the Act) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur for taking physical possession of mortgaged properties and to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for such taking possession. The Chief Judicial Magistrate passed order dated 9.3.2010 appointing an Advocate as Commissioner to take possession of the property from the debtor and to entrust the same to the Secured Creditor for custody. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no notice of the petition was given to the debtor and guarantor before passing the order by the lower court and no objections were received from them by the lower court before passing the impugned order. Section 14 of the Act does not contemplate giving of any notice to the debtors before taking possession of the property by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the District Magistrate. Section 14 also does not contemplate receipt of any objections from the debtors by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and making enquiry into those objections before passing an order thereunder. Section 14 of the Act enables an authorised officer of the Secured Creditor to apply for taking possession before the above authorities. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, his remedy is provided under the Act itself before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Secured Creditor did not file the petition in the lower court invoking any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was filed under Section 14 of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ananthapur did not exercise any magisterial powers while passing the impugned order under Section 14 of the Act. This Court is of the opinion that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act are ‘persona designata’ and did not act exercising their Magisterial powers under Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. Section 482 Cr.P.C reads as follows:- “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” Thus, latter part of Section 482 Cr.P.C is explicit to the effect that the said provision was intended to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Chief Judicial Magistrate registered petition under Section 14 of the Act as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P) and that therefore, this petition under Section 482 is maintainable. Irrespective of nomenclature given to the petition before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it has to be seen as to under what provision the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercised powers in passing the impugned order. Nomenclature given to the petition is not going to decide forum for appeal or other remedy against order passed therein. Forum for appeal or other remedy depends on the powers or jurisdiction exercised by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, I further hold that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable for questioning the impugned order. The petitioner is at liberty to approach proper forum by invoking proper provision of law to question the impugned order. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:31.03.2010. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3004 OF 2010 Date:31.03.2010 Gk.