UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. MANAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a banking company, is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in Crl.M.P.No.102/2025 in Crl.R.P.No.3/2025, through which the proceedings in M.C.No.198/2020 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MP's/MLA's of the State), Ernakulam, were stayed in a revision petition filed under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'). According to the petitioner, M.C No.198/2020 is an application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'), and since the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is not acting as a Criminal Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are not amenable to be corrected in revision by the Sessions Court. It is also the case of the petitioner that the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are only ministerial and there is no adjudication of the rights of parties in proceedings under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the respondents could not have challenged the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing a revision petition under Sec. 438 of the BNSS.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act was originally dismissed and was thereafter restored, on application. It is submitted that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to restore an application filed under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that no provision of the BNSS or the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates a power in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to restore an application dismissed for default.

(3.) It is submitted that in such circumstances, the respondents were well within their rights to challenge the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate restoring M.C No.198/2020 on the application made by the petitioner bank. It is pointed out that the fact that M.C.No.198/2020 was dismissed and was later restored has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Finally, it is submitted that Ext.P1 order cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.