Acts done in pursuance of court orders are protected from prosecution under Section 78 of the IPC, even if the court had no jurisdiction to pass such orders.

1. FIR dated 6th January, 2001 was lodged with the O.C. Karimpur PS in the District of Nadia by the BL & LRO, an officer authorised under section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 and an officer authorised by the Collector under section 4D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the petitioner alleging offences under section 4D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and Rule 30 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973 and under section 290/379/447 IPC for alleged unauthorised extraction and removal of mines and minerals is sought to be quashed by the petitioner-accused in this application dated 16th March, 2000 under section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

2. In sum, the allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner allegedly extracted unauthorisedly mines and minerals thus making himself liable for prosecution under the aforesaid sections of law.

3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to certain orders of this Court passed in more than one writ applications which were tiled by Nadia District Brick Manufacturers Association of which the present petitioner is a member. As far back as 7th April, 1992 His Lordship Hon'ble Justice N.K. Mitra (as His Lordship then was) on the prayer of the Nadia District Brick Manufacturers Association directed the respondents state to act strictly in terms of this Court's order passed in the writ petition and also in terms of prayer(g) of the said writ petition. Further my attention has been drawn to an order dated 23rd November, 1990 passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Kalyanmoy Ganguly (as his Lordship then was) in C.O. No. 12407(W) of 1990 wherein an interim order was passed directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to extract earth on payment of usual assessed royalty. It is submitted that pursuant to the order of the Writ Court as said above, the petitioner deposited Rs.20,000/- and it was accepted by the Land Reforms Directorate of Nadia on 24th December, 1999. My attention has further been drawn to an order dated 21.2.92 passed in C.O. No. 240(W) of 1992 by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Altamas Kabir (as His Lordship then was) directing the association to deposit Rs.10,000/- by way of advance royalty with the concerned authorities and upon deposit of such advanced royalty, the respondent's were directed to consider the question of grant of quary permit to the applicants. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that the vires of section 4C of the. West Bengal Land Reforms Act was challenged in a writ petition being C.O. No. 240(W) of 1992 and His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Maharaj Sinha declared the provision of section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act ultra vires. Provision of section 4C is a penal provision for violation of the provisions of section 4C. It is submitted that when the act of the petitioner is protected right from the year of 1991 by the judicial order of this Court, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under the aforesaid sections of the law in view of section 78 of the IPC which is reproduced below:

"Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court. Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of a Court of Justice; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction."

4. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that an identical case was also dealt with by this Court in Chotelal Chowdhury & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, as reported in 2008(3) CHN 1061. In this decision as many as four points were dealt with and decided. Firstly, it was held by this Court that the prosecution of the petitioner under section 290/379/447 of the IPC was not maintainable factually even because it was not a case of commission of theft of