1. Petitioner, who is respondent No.1 in Criminal Misc. No.5936/2012 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, is before this court under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 21.11.2012 made in the above-said case viz., Crl. Misc.5936/2012.

2. I have perused the file.

3. Registry has raised an objection as to maintainability of the Revision Petition. Case is posted for orders on Office objections i.e., as to maintainability of the Revision Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 3.5.2011 passed in Crl.RP No.525/2011 by this Court, Office objection is not maintainable. He further submits that since the trial Court has passed an order on a petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Securitisation Act’) and under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, no Act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can be questioned, Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.PC before this Court is maintainable. He relies upon the un-reported order dated 3.5.2011 passed in Crl.RP No.525/2011 (M/S. SHANTHI CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS) of this Court.

5. In view of the above, the following points would arise for my consideration:

(I) Whether a Petition under Section 397 of Cr.PC as against the orders made under sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act is maintainable?

(II) If answer to the above point is in the negative, what is the legal remedy available to the aggrieved party?

(III) What order?

6. For the purpose of convenience, I take up all the points together for consideration.

7. At the very outset, it must be mentioned that the order dated 3.5.2011 made in Crl.RP No.525/2011 was not with reference to the maintainability of the Revision Petition. In that case, the Registry has not raised objection as to maintainability and the Revision Petition has been allowed holding that Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition under Section 14 of the securitization Act.

8. Section 14 of the Securitisation Act is excerpted for immediate reference, which reads as under:

14.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secure asset,- (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secure asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-

(a) Take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and

(b) Forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.

(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary.

(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority.

9. It is pertinent to mention that according to Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any reference made to ‘the Chief Judicial Magistrate’, in relation to a metropolitan area, it shall be construed as a reference to ‘the Chief Met