Idfc First Bank Limited vs Narendra Kumar Sharma & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 739 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 2698 of 2021

IDFC First Bank Limited Vs.

Narendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

For the Petitioner            : Mr. Saptansu Basu
                              : Mr. Tanmay Mukherjee
                              : Mr. S. Bhattacharya


For the State                 : Mr. Sudip Ghosh
                              : Mr. Bitasok Banerjee



Heard on:                      : 22.02.2022

Judgment on :                  : 22.02.2022




       Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application challenging an order dated 01.12.2021

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Misc. Case

No. 573 of 2021 purportedly under in exercise of powers under

Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI

Act, for short).

Leave is granted to add the State of West Bengal as an opposite

party.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits as follows. The petitioner is aggrieved with an order passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferring the application to a

learned Judicial Magistrate for disposal. Relying on a decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2007 SC 712, it is submitted that while

acting under Section 14 of the said Act, it is not required to give notice

either to the borrower or to the third parties. Therefore, even in the

case of this revision, no notice need be given to the borrower or the

third parties. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has exercised

powers under Section 15 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

passing such order. That is why a revisional application has been

preferred in the criminal side. Otherwise, the matter could have been

moved before a writ Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

could not have delegated such power to anyone else.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that

the revisional application is not maintainable in the criminal side as

the order impugned was not passed in exercise of powers conferred

on the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing

on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition.

First, there is no indication in the impugned order that it was

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while acting as a

criminal Court.

Secondly, Section 15 (2) of the Code only empowers the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate either to make rules or give special orders as

to the distribution of business among Judicial Magistrate subordinate

to him. However, in the present case, no such power has been

exercised. Only a matter has been delegated to a learned Judicial

Magistrate for disposal.

Therefore, the impugned order was not passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate sitting as a Criminal Court. Rather, it is

passed as a delegate for discharge of an administrative function under

the SARFESI Act.

In view of the above, I find that no criminal revision is

maintainable against the impugned order passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate.

If the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is

not amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of this Court, then it would

be futile to decide whether such a matter under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act could be sent to a subordinate Magistrate in terms of

Sub-Section (1A) of Section 14 of the said Act.

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Furthermore, this order shall not come in the way of the

petitioner in challenging the impugned order before an appropriate

forum.

On the prayer of the learned advocate on record of the

petitioner, the Office is directed to return the certified copy of the

order annexed with the revision petition to the learned advocate on

record of the petitioner upon furnishing usual undertakings and on

supplying a copy of the same for the record.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered

to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon

compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta,J.)

Ssi