Magistrate has ample jurisdiction to reopen proceedings for taking possession of secured assets and subsequent filing of report of Advocate Commissioner would not affect its legality

Act of Magistrate in reopening proceedings for taking possession of secured assets and taking a report of Advocate Commissioner on record that was not placed before him earlier, is purely administrative and not judicial adjudication of inter se rights in respect of a subject matter of secured assets. Submission of the report being a ministerial act, would not affect the legality of the recovery proceeding or steps taken to recover possession of secured assets.

Proceeding before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate is essentially administrative or executive in nature and the Magistrate in recovery proceedings cannot be treated as a Criminal Court exercising judicial functions in respect of investigation/inquiry or trial of an offence. Hence, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bar on a Criminal Court to alter or review a judgment or final order does not restrict the powers of the Magistrate while exercising its powers to recover possession of secured assets.

In instant case, as the act of the Magistrate in recalling or modifying its earlier order to enable the Advocate Commissioner to submit his report was essentially ministerial in nature. The proceedings were alive at the time when the Advocate Commissioner had taken possession of the secured asset. Hence, it cannot be said that recovery of possession by the Advocate Commissioner was without jurisdiction. Subsequent filing of the Advocate Commissioner's report after the closure of the proceeding does not affect any legal right of the petitioner to render the recovery of possession in this case without jurisdiction.