Discharge under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 requires proper justification regarding quasi-judicial functions.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the prosecution, challenging order dated 09.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.572/2016 in C.C.No.12/2013 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, whereby the learned Special Judge discharged accused Nos.1 to 3 in the above case.

2. Though notice was served upon the respondents 1 and 2, the 1^st respondent appeared through counsel. The notice issued to the 2^nd respondent by registered post was returned with endorsement “unclaimed”. Thereafter, notice was served upon the 2^nd respondent through the Station House Officer concerned, and a memo to that effect also has been filed. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’ for short) as well as under Sections 468 , 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, even though the finding of the Special Court granting protection to the 1^st accused under the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Judges (Protection) Act' for short), has force, the discharge of the 3^rd accused, who is a document writer alleged to have forged and falsified the sale deed which led to SM proceedings could not be spared from criminal prosecution by way of discharge and the learned Special Judge went wrong in finding otherwise to discharge him.

5. The learned counsel for the 1^st accused/1^st respondent canvassed confirmation of the order in view of the protection given to the 1^st accused, who was the Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, who acted as a quasi-judicial body while issuing the purchase certificate, which, according to the prosecution, is a fraudulent one. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Remadevi K.P. v. Dy.Superintendent of Police , reported in 2025 KHC OnLine 827, wherein this Court while quashing the case against the retired Deputy Collector, who served as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode, on the finding that he had exercised a quasi-judicial function in paragraph Nos.5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 observed as under:

“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 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 questio