1. It was alleged that the land was gifted to the temple of Shri Deo Hanumanji in village Richbai. This land was given by the trustees or Sarvarakar of the temple to Ramesh Kumar in Adhiya. It was alleged that Ramesh Kumar got his name mutated as the owner of the property and thereby committed offence registered under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the non-applicant No. 1 Aswani Kumar, who was serving as Naib-Tahsildar at the relevant time, had also aided and abetted the crime committed by Ramesh Kumar, the main accused. Initially, the non-applicant No.1 was not made an accused in the case. After the evidence was recorded including that of the non-applicant No.1 himself, an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the applicant for making the non-applicant No.1, Aswani Kumar, a co-accused in the case. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on merits. It is apparent that the non-applicant No.1 was exercising his judicial powers under the M.P. Land Revenue Code while passing the order of mutation in favour of Ramesh Kumar. It is now being urged that the very act of passing of the order by the non-applicant No.1 in favour of Ramesh Kumar amounted to an offence as he had conspired with Ramesh Kumar, the main accused in derogation of the right of the Presiding Deity to get the name of Ramesh Kumar mutated as a Bhumiswami. Apart from this fact, the non-applicant No.1 himself was the prosecution witness it is clear that the non-applicant No.1, Aswani Kumar is protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act'). The definition of a Judge is given in section 2 of the Act, as follows:

“2. Definition -- In this Act' Judge' means not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person –

(a) who is empowered by law to give any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive; or

(b) who is one of a body of persons which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment as is referred to in Clause (a).”

Section 3 of the Act reads as under:

“3. Additional Protection to Judges -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner, the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any persons who is or was a Judge.”

2. It is also made clear in section 4 of the Act that the provisions of the Act are in addition to, and not in derogation, of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force providing for protection of Judges. It is clear from the definition given in section 2 of the Act that the non-applicant No.1 is covered by clauses (a) and (b) thereof. The non-applicant No.1 was empowered to give a definite judgment in a legal proceeding. It does not matter that for the purpose of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the judgment is mentioned as an order. The definition given in section 2 of the Act is much wider and it includes an order which determines the right of the parties, for the reasons given in it If the non-applicant No.1, exercising his power under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is a Judge, then he is entitled to protection under section 3(1) of the Act and no Court could entertain any civil or cr