9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1130 - HC - Indian LawsWhether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are of the same status having the same and identical jurisdiction so far as the trial of criminal cases is concerned? - Held that - Subsection (1) of Section 19 lays down that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Metropolitan Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Sub-section (2) empowers High Court to define the extent of subordination, if any, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are the Courts of the same status having same and identical jurisdiction so far as the trial of criminal cases is concerned. Having held status of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is same and identical, whether Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act? - Held that - Though the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is subordinate to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on administrative count and for certain purposes, it does not affect status or judicial power of additional Court vis-a-vis the principle. It may be stated that the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate handles the similar kind of litigation which is handled by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, we hold that the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate so far as the judicial functions are concerned has all powers of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act could be disposed of in time bound period as intended by the Legislature. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are of the same status and jurisdiction. 2. Whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the District Magistrate are persona designata under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. Possible measures for the expeditious disposal of applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Status and Jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: The court examined the provisions of the Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 16, 17, and 19, which define the establishment, appointment, and powers of Metropolitan Magistrates. It was concluded that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are courts of the same status with identical jurisdiction concerning the trial of criminal cases. This conclusion was supported by previous judgments, including the Division Bench's decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Shanti Prasad Jain, which held that both magistrates have equal judicial powers despite administrative subordination. 2. Powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act: The court considered whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It was concluded that the expression "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" in Section 14 includes the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. This interpretation was supported by the High Court's notifications, which authorized Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to exercise the powers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, including those under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, especially in the absence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. Persona Designata: The court addressed whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the District Magistrate are persona designata under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It was held that neither is persona designata, meaning they are not specifically designated individuals but rather offices that can delegate their powers. This was supported by the judgment in Puran Maharashtra Automobiles v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, which clarified that the powers exercised under Section 14 are executory and do not require quasi-judicial functions or application of mind, allowing delegation to other officers. 4. Measures for Expeditious Disposal: To address the issue of expeditious disposal of applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the court suggested two measures: - Directing the High Court to issue appropriate notifications under Section 17(2) of the Cr.P.C., empowering Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates with the same powers as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. - Allowing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate to delegate powers to other officers, given that the process under Section 14 is executory and not adjudicatory. Conclusion: Based on the analysis, the court concluded that: - The District Magistrate and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are not persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. - The expressions "District Magistrate" and "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. - The application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act could be disposed of in a time-bound manner as intended by the Legislature. Final Order: The rule was made absolute in the terms stated above, directing the necessary measures to ensure the expeditious disposal of applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
|
