( 1 ) ALL these revisions (Nos. 630/1998. 18/1999 and 22/1999), arise out of the order dated 25/8/1998, passed by Special Judge. Ujjain, in Special case No. 8/1996, discharging accused Rajeev Jam (the respondent here in Criminal Revision No. 630/1998) and two others of the charge under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, while directing framing of charges against other coaccused persons (the applicants here in Criminal Revision Nos. 18/1999 and 22/1999), for the said offences with the aid of Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience all these persons shall hereafter be referred as accused persons (s) Criminal Revision No. 6301 1998 is preferred by the State challenging discharge of accused Rajeev Jam, while Criminal Revision Nos. 18/1999 and 22/1999 are preferred by other co-accused persons against the charges framed against them. All these revisions have been heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass. Accused Rajeev Jam at the relevant time was the Collector Stamps appointed under the provision of the Indian Stamp Act. 1899 (for short the Act ). Other accused persons are sellers and purchasers of certain immovable properties which were sold/purchased under five different sale deeds dated 27/12/1988, 16-2-1989, 5/7/1989, 12. 8. 1989 and 28/8/1991. All these sale deeds were registered under the Indian Registration Act at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ujjain. The Sub-Registrar, Ujjain, vide his orders dated 7/7/1989 and 14/9/1989, purporting to act under Section 47-A (M. P. Amendment), referred all the aforesaid sale deeds to the Collector Stamps, Ujjain, for determination of market value of the property in question and the proper duty payable thereon. Accused Rajeev Jam, the then Collector Stamps, Ujjain, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing and after holding enquiry (evidence was also taken), passed orders dated 3/3/1992 and 10/6/1992 thereby determining the market value of the said property which was slightly higher than the one disclosed in the sale deeds but lesser than the one suggested by the Sub-Registrar. It appears that some complaint was made against accused Rajeev Jam to the Lok Ayukta. M. P. , Bhopal, which led to some enquiry into the matter and ultimately a crime was registered by Special Police Establishment and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Special Court, Ujjain, for trial under Sections 13 (l) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sections 109 and 120-B of IPC.

( 3 ) THE Court below after hearing parties and on consideration of the evidentiary material filed with the chargesheet passed the impugned order as aforesaid thus giving rise to these revisions.

( 4 ) I have heard Sarvashri H. S. Uberoi, Mahendra Jam and Piyush Mathur, learned Counsel for accused persons; and Shri Girish Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General for State.

( 5 ) TAKING the case of accused Rajeev Jam first, order for his discharge is recorded by the Trial Judge mainly on the ground that his prosecution is barred under the provisions of Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and Judge (Protection) Act, 1985. Mr. Girish Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General, however, contended that the Collector Stamps is only an Administrative. Officer though entrusted to perform certain quasi judicial functions but he is not a Judicial Officer or a Judge within the meaning of the aforesaid two Acts of 1850 and 1985.

( 6 ) THE Judicial Officers Protection Act. 1850 protects Judicial Officer against, being sued in any civil court for official acts done or orders passed by them in good faith. Under Section 1 of the Act, not only a Judge, Magistrate or Justice of Peace, a Collector or other person acting judicially are also protected against such civil action. The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 goes a step