Important Point
A quasi-judicial proceeding has to be distinguished on one hand from a judicial proceeding and on the other, from an administrative and ministerial proceeding.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants - original accused call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in the Criminal Revision Application No.131 of 2015, by which, the learned additional Sessions Judge rejected the Revision Application preferred by the applicants herein, thereby, affirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, dated 04.08.2015 passed below Exhibit: 159 in the Criminal Case No.7995 of 2011.

2. The facts of this case may be summarised as under:

2.1 Shri Dolatsinh Pruthusinh Parmar, Digvirsinh Nathusinh Parmar, Arvindsinh Nathusinh Parmar and their family members owned parcels of land situated at village: Oon and Bhestan of District: Surat. The proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling (Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “ULC Act”) were initiated. The necessary declarations were to be made by the land owners in the prescribed format. In such proceedings, under the ULC Act, the land owners are alleged to have submitted false and bogus documentary evidence before the competent authority with the intention to conceal necessary declarations of the free hold land. Such documents were furnished on or about 06.04.1989, pursuant to which, no surplus land was declared under the said Act. The survey Nos.34 paiki, No.37 paiki at village: Oon and Survey No.157 paiki at village: Bhestan were declared surplus under the ULC Act. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the claims of 28 heirs and considering 20 units per legal heir, 30,000 sq. mtrs of land was available, and therefore, no surplus land was declared.

2.2 The land owners vide affidavit dated 29.08.1988 of 20 persons and other documentary evidence are alleged to have obtained the advantage fraudulently. Digvirsinh Nathusinh Parmar passed away on 08.08.1996, Arvindsinh Nathusinh Parmar passed away on 12.01.2008 and Dolatsinh Pruthusinh Parmar passed away on 14.07.2010.

2.3 It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, on or about 03.04.2010, one Bharatsinh Vijaysinh Parmar submitted an application before the Collector, ULC Branch, in connection with the fraudulent acts.

2.4 In such circumstances referred to above, the Police Inspector asked one Shri P.N. Thakore, the Mamlatdar City Taluka, to lodge the First Information Report in that regard. The First Information Report was accordingly registered with the Sachin Police Station, Surat bearing IC. R. No.189 of 2010 dated 12.08.2010 of the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.5 On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet. In the said charge sheet, one Shri S.M. Vyas, the authorised officer (competent officer) and the Deputy Collector (ULC, Surat) has been shown as one of the prosecution witnesses. Shri S.M. Vyas came to be cited as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet since he had passed an order dated 06.04.1989 under the provisions of the ULC Act. The said order has been produced and exhibited at Exhibit: 43 in the trial. It also appears that no police statement of Shri S.M. Vyas was recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

2.6 It appears that the prosecution proposes to examine Shri Vyas, the Deputy Collector, as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. The accused persons herein objected the decision of the prosecutor to examine Shri S.M. Vyas by filing an application Exhibit: 159. The objection was raised relying upon Section 121 of the Evidence Act, as according to the accused persons, the order passed by Shri Vyas has already been exhibited. The sum and substance of the objection raised by the accused persons is that Shri Vyas, being the Deputy Collector, should not be compelled to answer any question as to his own conduct.

2.7 The trial Court, vide order dated 04.08.2015, rejecte