IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2101 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.4635/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): Cr.PETITIONERS --------------- 1. M/S.GREEN PARK TEA PVT. LTD., M.C.R.A. 75, NELLIMUKKU,KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR. 2. SRI.SHAHIRSHA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.GREEN PARK TEA PVT.(LTD., M.C.R.A. 75, NELLIMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESAIDING AT IQUBAL MANZIL, THIRUMULLAVANAM PO., KOLLAM 3. A.SHAHANAZ, DIRECTOR, DO.DO. 4. SAINABA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA IQUBAL MANZIL, NELLIMUKKU, KOLLAM 5. MUHAMMED IRFAN, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, IQ UBAL MANZIL, NELLIMUKKU, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONER AND STATE -------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER KOLLAM MAIN, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2101 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 ORDER In this Crl.M.C, the petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam to exercise the functions assigned to the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. A Division Bench of this Court in Muhammed Ashraf v. Union of India [2008(4) KLT 1] has now settled the controversy and has held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate does have powers under Section 14 of the said Act. Later, reference was made to the Division Bench and another Division Bench, by order dated 20.11.08 in Crl.M.C.No.4369 of 2008, has concurred with the decision of the earlier Division Bench and has come to the conclusion that the said decision does not deserve reconsideration. 2. In these circumstances the challenge is without any merit. 3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-