Kerala High Court
K.P.Remadevi vs Dy.Superintendent Of Police on 23 July, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 3461 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:54605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA,
1947
CRL.MC NO. 3461 OF 2025
VC NO.7 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMR.& SPECIAL
JUDGE,KZD.
PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED:
K.P.REMADEVI
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, DY.COLLECTOR AND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE(RTD) 'REMYA',
BEYPORE.P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)
SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR
SMT.ANUPAMA SIBI
SMT.N.R.REESHA
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB, SRI.RAJESH.A,
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB, SMT.REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 3461 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:54605
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2025
First accused in V.C.No.07/2014 on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has
filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the
prayer herein is as under:
To quash Annexure A FIR No.VC
07/2014 KKD before the Enquiry
Commissioner And Special Judge, Kozhikode
and all further proceedings pursuant thereto,
so as to secure the ends of justice.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.
3. In this matter, crime was registered
alleging commission of offences punishable under Section
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter) as well as
2025:KER:54605
under Sections 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, by the accused. The allegations against the
petitioner herein, as per FIR, are as under:
The Vigilance enquiry conducted
disclosed that Smt.Remadevi had officiated as
RDO Kozhikode for the period from 26-06-2009
to 22-02-2011. The officer was entrusted with
the authority to proceed against the vehicles
transporting river and illegally under the
Kerala Protection of River Banks and
Regulation of Removal of sand Act 2001 and
KPRB and RS ordinance 2010. As per section
23A(2) there is provision in the Act to confiscate
the vehicles used for illegal transportation.
Uncertain conditions after hearing, the vehicles
can be released to the owners temporarily by
collecting 30% of the total value of the vehicle in
cash and 70% of the value by providing security
either by immovable property or by bank
guarantee. During the tenure of Smt.Remadevi
about 198 cases of seizure of vehicles with illegal
sand transportation had been heard and
disposed from the district. The enquiry officer
checked and verified 47 such case files at
random during the Vigilance enquiry. The
verification of files and the enquires conducted
2025:KER:54605
brought out serious irregularities involving
corruption in disposing the vehicles involved in
the reported cases of seizure. Most of the cases
were book by the local Police from the district on
detection of illegal transportation of river sand.
In few instances the Revenue squad also seized
and referred the matter to the RDO. It is
observed that only river sand transported
without proper sand passes were seized and
referred to the RDO to proceed against the
vehicle owners under the act. No delay is
noticed by seizing officers to file report of
seizure. Notices were seen served to RC owners
from the office to invoke provisions to confiscate
the vehicles involved in such cases. Most of the
owners failed to appear with proper
documents/sand passes in the first appearance.
Sufficient opportunity is seen extended to the
vehicle owners to produce various sorts of
documents like passes issued by manufacturers
of M.Sand, rock sand and ordinary soil for
which mining permits were already sanctioned
by Mining & Geology Department. Under the
cover of such subsequently produced passes, the
RDO released vehicles to the owners imposing
nominal fines to defeat the very purpose of the
Act and causing heavy financial loss to public
exchequer. This was materialised by sheer abuse
of power with ulterior motives to get pecuniary
2025:KER:54605
advantages to the vehicle owners as well as to
the officer.
The enquiry officer has observed that
in a particular case that reported by Koduvally
Police station in Cr.No.340/10, the Village
officer, Thiruvambady provided a bogus sand
pass to the vehicle owner to facilitate the release
of the vehicle involved in the case. The Village
officer abused his office and provided a bogus
sand pass to the vehicle owner for the undue
gain of the vehicle owner. In another instance,
one Abdul Rafeeq has been released his vehicle
from RDO office on production of a sand pass
created subsequent to the seizure of the vehicle.
Orders are seen passed by the RDO in the above
two instances also without verifying the
genuineness of the document produced
subsequent to the detection of the offences.
4. While seeking quashment of the FIR, the
point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner officiated as the Revenue Divisional
Officer (RDO), Kozhikode, for the period from 26.06.2009
till 22.02.2011. While holding the post, she was entrusted
with the authority to proceed against vehicles transporting
river sand illegally under the Kerala Protection of River
2025:KER:54605
Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for
short, 'the Sand Act, 2001' hereinafter) and KPRB and RS
Ordinance, 2010. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, as per Section 23A(2) of the Ordinance, there
was a provision to confiscate the vehicles used for illegal
transportation. Further, it is submitted that against the
order passed under Section 23A, revision is provided to the
District Collector under Section 23B and also an appeal
before the District Court under Section 23C. The specific
point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that, while exercising the power of confiscation under
Section 23A(2) of the Ordinance, the functions performed
by the petitioner as the Revenue Divisional Officer, are
quasi-judicial in nature, thereby entitling the officer to
protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Judges (Protection)
Act' hereinafter). Annexure C - final order in
Crl.M.C.No.1736/2013, dated 10.10.2014, rendered by the
learned Single Judge of this Court, has been placed by the
learned counsel, where the said issue was considered.
2025:KER:54605
After referring the provisions and also referring two
decisions of the Apex Court in S.P.Goel v. Collector of
Stamps, Delhi reported in [(1996) 1 SCC 573] and
E.S.Sanjeeva Rao v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (C.B.I.) Mumbai and others reported
in [2012 Cri.L.J.4053] and also the decision of this
Court in Sankara Pillai v. Chandran reported in [1991
(1) KLT 586], this Court in paragraph No.14 of Annexure
C - final order in Crl.M.C.No.1736/2013 held as under:
14. Considering the powers
exercised by the petitioner while dealing with
matters under the Ordinance, it is indisputable
that he was wielding quasi judicial powers. If
he committed mistakes knowingly or
unknowingly, there are remedies available to
the aggrieved persons as per the provisions of
the Ordinance itself. Apart from that, Sub-sec.
(2) of Sec.3 of the Act of 1985 itself enables the
Central Government or State Government or
the Supreme Court of India or any High Court
as the case may be, to take such action,
whether civil, criminal or departmental,
against any person, who is or was a Judge. It
is, therefore, very clear that the power of the
State Government to take action against the
2025:KER:54605
petitioner is not taken away by the Act of 1985
if he was delinquent in the discharge of his
official duties. But,that will not enable the
prosecution to register a case against the
petitioner without obtaining required sanction
under Sec.3 (2) of the Act of 1985. Hence, I find
that the petition is to be allowed. It is made
clear that the State Government is free to take
appropriate action under law against the
petitioner, if there are legal reasons for doing
so.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed
for quashment of the proceedings by applying the ratio laid
down in the above decisions.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor placed a
constitution of Division Bench of the Apex Court in
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut v. Lakshmi Chand
and Others reported in [1963 KHC 538], with
reference to paragraph Nos.11 and 13 and in paragraph
No.13, the Apex Court enlisted the essentials to be satisfied
to make a decision or an act judicial. The same as under:
13. To make a decision or an act
judicial, the following criteria must
2025:KER:54605
be satisfied:
1) it is in substance a determination
upon investigations of a question by
the application of objective
standards to facts found in the light
of pre existing legal rules;
2) it declares rights or imposes
upon parties obligation affecting
their civil rights; and
3) that the investigation, is subject to
certain procedural attributes
contemplating an opportunity of
presenting its case to a party,
ascertainment of facts by means of
evidence if a dispute be on questions
of fact, and if the dispute be on
question of law on the presentation
of legal argument, and a decision
resulting in the disposal of the
matter on findings based upon those
questions of law and fact.
In the said case, the Apex Court considered the order
passed by a Conciliation Officer in granting or refusing
permission to alter the terms of the employment of
workmen, at the instance of the employer and held that the
direction of the Conciliation Officer under Clause 29 of the
2025:KER:54605
order could not be said to be purely administrative.
6. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, when the essentials set out by the Apex Court as
stated above or gone through, it could not be safely
concluded that the petitioner exercised the power of quasi-
judicial function so as to get protection. The learned
Public Prosecutor also placed decision of this Court in
Paul P.R. v. State of Kerala and Another reported in
[2013 (2) KHC 692], where this Court addressed the
question as to whether Land Acquisition Officer
discharging the functions of the District Collector is
entitled to claim protection under the Judges (Protection)
Act and held that he is not entitled to get the benefit of
Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Similarly,
the learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of
this Court in Sunil Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and
Another, reported in [2021 KHC 5052], where this
Court held that the Tahsildar, who is exercising the power
of a Land Tribunal, is exercising quasi-judicial power.
Likewise, in another decision in Santhosh Kumar G. v.
2025:KER:54605
State of Kerala reported in [2021 KHC 393], this
Court appraised the question as to whether protection is
available to the Kerala Value Added Tax Assessment
Authority and held in the affirmative.
7. In the instant case, what was done by the
petitioner is exercise of power of confiscation under
Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, for which, revision and
appeal also provided, as argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner under Section 23B and 23C. Going by the
allegations in the FIR, the allegations are confined to the
erroneous and illegal exercise of power, allegedly benefited
undue pecuniary advantage to the vehicle owners in
collusion with the officer, as stated by the prosecution.
While addressing the question of whether the petitioner
exercised power under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001
as a quasi-judicial authority falling within the purview of
Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, the
parameters set out by the Apex Court in Jaswant Sugar
Mills's case (supra), as well as the provisions referred to in
Annexure C final order, are relevant to be considered.
2025:KER:54605
8. Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act,
1985 defines the term 'Judge' as follows:
"In this Act, "Judge" means not only every
person who is officially designated as a Judge,
but also every person-
(a) who is empowered by law to
give in any legal proceeding a definitive
judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed
against, would be definitive, or a judgment
which, if confirmed by some other authority,
would be definitive; or
(b) who is one of a body of persons
which body of persons is empowered by law to
give such a judgment as is referred to in clause
(a)."
9. Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act,
1985 further provides as under:
"Additional Protection to Judges
(1) Notwithstanding,
anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force and
subject to the provision of sub-
section (2), no court shall entertain
or continue any civil or criminal
proceeding against any person who
is or was a Judge for any act, thing
or word committed, done or spoken
by him when, or in the course of
acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official or judicial
2025:KER:54605
duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section
(1) shall debar or affect in any
manner, the power of the Central
Government or the State
Government or the Supreme Court
of India or any High Court or any
other authority under any law for
the time being in force to take such
action (whether by way of civil,
criminal or department proceeding
or otherwise) against any person
who is or was a Judge."
10. Going by the Apex Court judgment in
Jaswant Sugar Mills's case (supra), in order to find out
whether an order passed by the authority of a quasi-judicial
nature may not be a nomenclature to the officer to describe
him as a Judge or a Judicial Officer and what would require
is whether, by the virtue of the said Act, the officer declares
rights or imposes obligation upon parties affecting their
civil rights and whether the investigation, enquiry or the
proceedings are subject to certain procedural articles
contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a
party ascertaining the facts by means of evidence on the
2025:KER:54605
fact disputed and if the dispute be on question of law on
the presentation of legal arguments and a decision
resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based
upon those questions of law and fact. When an authority
exercises a statutory power with the above requirements,
for which, challenge by way of revision and appeal have
been provided by the same statute, the said order should
not be relegated as an order either of executive or an
administrative nature, such order should be characterized
as a quasi-judicial order and the officer, who passed the
order, which is the core plank of this crime, thus, entitled
to protection under Section 2(a) r/w 3 of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985. Holding so, the FIR registered
against the petitioner herein who had exercised quasi-
judicial functions will not sustain in the eye of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. All further
proceedings in Annexure A FIR No.VC 07/2014 KKD before
the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode,
against the petitioner herein, stand quashed.
However, it is specifically ordered that the State
2025:KER:54605
Government is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner
under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
2025:KER:54605
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC.3461/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.VC
07/2014 KKD OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDED
TO THE PETITIONER BY THE REVENUE
DEPARTMENT
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10-10-2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
CRL.MC.NO. 1736 OF 2013
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
