### Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Competent to Exercise Judicial Powers under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act

The Applicants, a proprietary concern and its proprietor, obtained multiple loan facilities (Term Loans and Cash Credit) from Non-applicant No. 2 (Indian Bank), secured by equitable mortgages over immovable properties.

Upon default, the bank classified the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

Following the rejection of the Applicants' representation, the bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Akola, seeking possession of the secured assets.

The ACJM allowed the application on 30.08.2025 and appointed a Court Commissioner.

The Applicants challenged this before the Sessions Court in a revision, which was dismissed on 26.09.2025.

The Applicants then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, primarily contending that the ACJM lacked jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act.

Whether an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) is competent to exercise powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in light of Section 10(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Whether a Criminal Application under Section 482 of the CrPC is maintainable when an efficacious remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act.

The court applied Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which empowers the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or District Magistrate (DM) to assist secured creditors in taking possession.

It interpreted Section 12(2) of the CrPC (and its successor Section 10(2) of the BNSS, 2023), which stipulates that an ACJM shall have the powers of a CJM as the High Court may direct.

The court relied on M/s. R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd. (AIR 2022 SC 4820) to establish that ACJMs are at par with CJMs/CMMs regarding judicial functions.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from M/s. Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. V. Ganesh Murthy (2023) that remedies against SARFAESI actions must be sought under the Act itself, not through criminal inherent powers.

The court dismissed the Applicants' jurisdictional challenge by observing that the High Court, via Notifications dated 27.12.2010 and 26.10.2016, had expressly conferred the powers of a Chief Judicial Magistrate upon ACJMs at Taluka places.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court clarified that while a CJM handles administrative distribution of business, an ACJM is not subordinate to the CJM regarding judicial functions and thus possesses the requisite authority to pass orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Regarding maintainability, the court reasoned that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing a specific remedy under Section 17.

Since an order under Section 14 constitutes a measure taken after Section 13(4), the Applicants ought to have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

It further held that the application under Section 482 of the CrPC was not maintainable as the Applicants failed to exhaust the efficacious alternative remedy available before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Consequently, the Criminal Application was rejected, and the oral prayer for a stay on the possession order was denied.