'Executive Officer' Deciding Mutation Proceedings Is A 'Judge' For Purposes Of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that an Executive Officer in the Patna Municipal Corporation would be covered under the ambit of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, while deciding mutation proceedings. The Court clarified that any person who is legally empowered, in the course of legal proceedings, to render a definitive and determinative judgment would be regarded as a 'Judge' for the purposes of the 1985 Act.A Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar thus allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the sanction for prosecution granted by the Law Department, Government of Bihar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The petitioner, then posted as an Executive Officer in the Patna Municipal Corporation, also sought quashing of the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet.The case arose from allegations of illegal mutation of a property in municipal records and issuance of false holding tax receipts. The complainant claimed that when he went to deposit the holding tax, he discovered the property had been mutated in another person's name through fraud regarding parentage.It was further alleged that the petitioner acted in connivance with others by ignoring relevant documents and passing a cryptic order staying further mutation proceedings to cover up the alleged illegality.The petitioner argued that he had no role in the alleged fraud as the mutation was effected in the year 2005 and holding tax receipts were issued by the then Executive Officer, whereas the Petitioner was not posted in the office at that relevant time. The Petitioner submitted that he merely passed a stay order in 2013 in exercise of his quasi-judicial authority, keeping the mutation proceeding pending till the disposal of a Title Suit (No. 507 of 2011) covering the same property. The petitioner further challenged the sanction order as having been passed in complete violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.The High Court examined whether the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, applies to revenue authorities. Referring to Sections 2 and 3, the Court held that a person need not be formally designated as a 'Judge' to fall within the Act. The Court observed that where a person is authorized to deliver a judgment that is final in itself, or attains finality upon confirmation by an appellate authority, such person would fall within the ambit of the term “Judge.” Consequently, any individual who renders such a determinative judgment in legal proceedings would be deemed to be a Judge."Now turning to the facts of the present case, from the afore-quoted discussions, it is patently clear that the petitioner would fall within the ambit of protections afforded by the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The protection is obviously not absolute and the State or appropriate authority could proceed against an erring officers in terms of section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act," the HC noted.The Court held that the stay order passed by the petitioner while discharging his official duties as Executive Officer, in respect of the same property which was already the subject matter of a pending title suit before the competent civil court, could not by itself form the basis for initiating criminal prosecution.The Court termed the criminal prosecution launched solely for the purpose of passing a stay order simpliciter as a "malafide prosecution".The Court further found that the sanction order was "totally cryptic' and 'non-speaking'. The Court noted that the sanctioning authority failed to mention any material which would warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings and missed the substance of why the sanction was required, particularly when the petitioner was protected under the 1985 Act. Accordingly, the Court held that the sanction order suffered from clear non-application of mind and could not be sustained.Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR, the sanction order, and all consequent proceedings arising from it.Title: Mr. S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1897 of 2022Appearance: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Mr. Rohit Raj appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay appeared for the State.Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Executive Officer' Deciding Mutation Proceedings Is A 'Judge' For Purposes Of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Patna High Court

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

'Executive Officer' Deciding Mutation Proceedings Is A 'Judge' For Purposes Of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Patna High Court

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers