Balakrishnan Nair, J.

This criminal miscellaneous case has come up before the Division Bench for admission, on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court. The reference order reads as follows:

"In a non-metropolitan area is it the District Magistrate (Executive Magistrate) or the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate) who is to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act)? This is the question raised again before this Court in this Crl.M.C.

2. The question appears to have been concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Muhammed Ashraf v. Union of India (2008 (4) KLT 1). But the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said decision requires re-consideration for the short reason that the attention of the Division Bench has not been drawn to the provisions of Section 3(4) of Cr.P.C.

3. The counsel points out that the decision in Muhammed Ashraf (supra) very clearly shows that the jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act is not judicial in nature. But while considering whether the jurisdiction