1. Crucial legal question arising for consideration is the following:

Whether the Collector defined in Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Land Acquisition Officer discharging the functions of the Collector under the said Act is entitled to claim protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985?

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, facts relevant for our purpose are the following:

Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.17 of 2006 before the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, is called up to answer a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act of 1988"). Allegation against the petitioner is that while he was working as Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, he demanded bribe from the complainant, whose land admeasuring about 19 acres was acquired for an industrial development scheme. It is the further contention that the complainant refused to budge to the demand for illegal gratification of Rs.500/-per cent of land, and therefore the petitioner undervalued the property, causing great financial loss to the complainant. The complaint was forwarded to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After conducting detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the allegation was false and therefore, the complaint was referred. Thereafter Annexure-A complaint was filed.

3. Petitioner entered appearance before the court below on receipt of summons and he is on bail now. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked. Subsequently, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1757 of 2007 before the court below claiming discharge. That petition was considered and dismissed by the court below. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.").

4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor was also heard.

5. From the impugned order passed by the trial court, it is seen that the petitioner raised mainly two contentions for discharge. First one was lack of sanction for prosecution required under Section 19 of the Act of 1988. Trial court, after considering the binding precedents on the point, found that the accused facing prosecution for offences under the Act of 1988 cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he had ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance of the offence. Reliance was placed by the trial court on R. Balakrishna Pillai v. The State and another (1995 Crl.L.J. 963) and State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (AIR 1999 SC 2405). Trial court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service long prior to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the court below rightly found that no sanction was required under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 to proceed against the petitioner.

6. Second contention raised was regarding the claim of protection available to the petitioner under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. That claim was also repelled by the trial court. That contention deserves to be considered in detail. Therefore I shall do so in the succeeding paragraphs.

7. Before that the question as to whether an order for framing charge can be challenged in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be considered. It is indubitable that an order framing charge substantially affects accused's liberty. It is the responsibility of the court, while framing charge, to judicially consider the materials before it. Predominant view is that if the objection raised against an order framing charge is upheld results in termination of the proceedings, then order framing charge cannot be regarded as merely an interlocutory order under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. In other words, framing charge is a very important matter affecting the liberty of the accused and compelling the accused to undergo a trial. It cannot therefore be held to be an interlocutory order. (se