Short Note By the order impugned in this revision, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch has declined prayer made by Police under S. 52A(2) of the NDPS Act to certify the inventory prepared by the Police of the seized contraband in terms of sub-section (I) of section 52A. Sub-section (2) of section 52A speaks of certification by any Magistrate of the inventory prepared under sub-section (1). Section 52A nowhere provides where such Magistrate has to be a Judicial Magistrate or Executive Magistrate. In such a situation recourse has to be taken to section 2(xxix) of the NDPS Act and sub-section (4) of section 3 of the CrPC, 1973. Section 3 provides for construction of references to the word 'Magistrate' used without any qualifying words, such as 'Judicial' and 'Executive'. Sub-section (4) reads thus: "(4) Where, under any law, other than this Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matters – (a) which involve the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any Court, they shall, subject to the provisions of this Code, be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate; or (b) which are administrative or executive in nature, such as, the granting of a licence, the suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecution, they shall, subject as aforesaid, be exercisable by an Executive Magistrate." A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that it is only where the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to a matter which require appreciation or sifting of evidence or passing of a decision, only then the word 'Magistrate' shall be construed as Judicial Magistrate, not otherwise. In all other cases the word has to be construed as Executive Magistrate. In the instant case, the functions assigned to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 52A does not involve appreciation or sifting of evidence or adjudication of any matter exposing any person to any punishment or penalty. The function was clearly of administrative or Executive in nature. The learned Judicial Magistrate was, therefore, right in declining prayer of the police to certify the inventory. The function was clearly of administrative or Executive in nature. The learned Judicial Magistrate was, therefore, right in declining prayer of the police to certify the inventory. Police should have approached any Executive Magistrate for that purpose and this revision petition, in my judgment is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. The revision is accordingly dismissed.