The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an Executive Officer excercising quasi-judicial powers cannot be granted protection under the Judges Protection Act 1985.
The Division-Bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice V.K. Shukla was dealing a Criminal Revision Petition wherein the Tehsildar was accused of granting personal favours to her huband and servant in transfer of some property and the Lower Court denied her protection in tune with Judges.
Brief Facts of the Case
Allegedly, a complaint was filed against the Applicant that she misused her post and office of Tehsildar to auction a property at a price much lower than the guideline value. The property was sold to her servant, whereas her husband was the witness. Accordingly, she was charged under Section- 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section- 169, 120-B IPC. While framing the charges, the lower court rejected her plea for seeking protection under the Act of 1985.
Assailing the impugned order, it was submitted that the applicant was working as Tehsildar in the Revenue Court and therefore the applicant was entitled for protection under the Judges Protection Act.
He stressed on the some aspects of the Act and submitted that what is provided under the Act is an additional protection afforded to a Judge apart from that in other institutions.
Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 was intended to provide greater protection to the Magistrates and the others acting judicially. The Act also provides protection only in the matter of civil actions, he added.
It was submitted that the applicant being a Revenue Officer holds status of Judge as defined in Section 2 of the Act by virtue of Section 31 of MPLR Code. While making reference to Section 2 of the Act he submitted that the definition of Judge as given in section 2 thereof is wide enough to include Revenue Officer upon him status of the court has been conferred by Section 31 of the MPLR Code. He has further contended that the applicant being empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment and, therefore, he was entitled to additional protection under Section 3(1) of the Act.
He averred that provisions of the Act goes to show that for the purpose to seek protection of Judges Protection Act, the person concerned has to show that the cause of action for filing prosecution against him relates to something done by him while exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction i.e. to show that he 5 is deciding the lis as Judicial Officer.
High Court's Observation
Contravening the Counsel for applicant, the Court noted that the question of protection has to be examined from two different angles.
Provisions of section 3(1) not only protects Judges as defined in Section 2 from civil or criminal proceedings for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting in the discharge of his official duty or function but also extends the protection to them for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him while purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function, the Court clarified.
Obviously, the protection does not extend to acts purely administrative/ministerial/extra-judicial/alien to the judicial duty. Any act, which is not done in the discharge of his judicial duty, is therefore, not covered by the sub-Section, it observed.
With regard to allegation levelled against her, the Court referred to Union of India & Ors Vs. K. K. Dhawan, 1993 Latest Caselaw 39 SC has enumerated following guidelines in regard to initiation of proceedings against an officer who had performed quasi judicial functions:
(i) Whether the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty.
(ii) If there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty.
(iii) If he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant.
(iv) If he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the service of the statutory powers.
The Court sided with Trial Court's view and dismissed the petition.
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
