Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Secretary (Finance) in the administration of Daman & Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, was given additional charge of Collector in 1993. He granted 13 non-agricultural land permissions to original accused nos. 7, 8, and 9. It was alleged that he conspired with the architect and staff, violating procedure, causing wrongful gain. He was prosecuted under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge, CBI, Daman rejected his discharge application under section 227 CrPC. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging those orders. The petitioner contended that as Collector he was a Judge under section 19 IPC and section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and thus protected by section 77 IPC and section 3 of the Act. He argued that the Land Revenue Code made the Collector’s function judicial. The CBI opposed, submitting that granting NA permission is an administrative function under section 6 of the Code. The judgment text ends before the court’s decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Collector while granting non-agricultural land permission under Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 acts as a Judge entitled to immunity under section 77 of the Indian Penal Code and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and whether there is sufficient material to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Law Points
- Collector granting NA permission may be a Judge under section 19 IPC and Judges Protection Act
- judicial act protected under section 77 IPC
- function under Land Revenue Code is judicial
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (02) 79
Writ Petition No. 1620 of 2016
Mr. Sanjay Diwakar, Mr. Sushil Gupta, Ms. Rina Mishra for petitioner; Mrs. P.P. Shinde for State; Mr. H.S. Venegavkar for CBI
Narayan Diwakar s/o. Late Sh. Chatti Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra and Central Bureau of Investigation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging rejection of discharge application in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought discharge from the criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Daman.
Filing Reason
The Special Judge rejected the petitioner's application for discharge under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Previous Decisions
The Special Judge, CBI, Daman rejected the applications for discharge by orders dated 29 July 2011 and 15 July 2015 in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2010.
Issues
Whether the Collector while granting permission for non-agricultural land under the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 acts as a Judge under section 19 of the Indian Penal Code and section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under section 77 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 for acts done in discharge of judicial duty.
Whether there is sufficient material to frame charges under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
Whether the function of granting non-agricultural permission is a judicial or administrative function under the relevant Code.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that as Collector, he was a Judge under section 19 IPC and section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, empowered to give definitive judgments in legal proceedings, and the Land Revenue Code deemed him a Civil Court (sections 165, 180); therefore, he was immune under section 77 IPC and section 3 of the Judges Protection Act.
The petitioner contended that there was no evidence of bribe or illegal gain, and he was exonerated by the Development Commissioner's report; he relied on various Supreme Court judgments.
The respondent CBI submitted that proceedings before the Collector under the Code are not judicial but administrative, as indicated by section 6 of the Code which describes the Collector’s role in charge of revenue administration, and thus no immunity applies.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was given an additional charge of the Collector in her absence.
Granting permission for non-agricultural land is a judicial decision taken by the Collector.
Section 3 of The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law ... no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act ... in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.
He relied on Section 6 of the Code on the point of function of the Collector wherein it is mentioned that the Collector is in charge of the
Procedural History
The petitioner, while serving as Secretary (Finance) and holding additional charge as Collector of Daman in 1993, granted non-agricultural land permissions to original accused nos. 7,8,9. FIR No. 64(A)/93-Bom was registered for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The case was committed to Sessions Case No. 131 of 2010. The Special Judge, CBI, Daman took cognizance and issued process on 29 July 2011. The petitioner's discharge application under section 227 CrPC was rejected on 29 July 2011 and again on 15 July 2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging these orders.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(1)(d), 13(2)
- Indian Penal Code: 19, 77, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 227
- Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968: 6, 30, 165, 180
- Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: 2, 3
