wrong order by quasi judicial authority - not criminal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944

CRL.MC NO. 8766 OF 2022

(AGAINST FIR NO.VC.06/2022/TSR OF VIGILANCE & 

ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR)

A criminal proceeding cannot be

initiated merely on the ground that a wrong or incorrect order was

passed by the public servant. If a public servant acting as a quasijudicial authority under a statute passes an order and if such order is

in favour of a person other than the Government, any pecuniary

Crl.M.C.Nos.8766/2022, 

1338 & 1480/2023

-:21:-

advantage obtained by such person by virtue of such order, cannot be

the basis for prosecution of the public servant under the PC Act,

unless there is an allegation that he was actuated by extraneous

considerations or oblique motives in passing the order (See Sunil

Kumar v. State of Kerala 2021 (4) KLT 51). There is no case for

the prosecution that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 is actuated by any such

extraneous considerations or oblique motives in passing the

impugned order. Even though it is vaguely alleged in the second part

of the FIR that the impugned order was passed by the Taluk Land

Board by accepting pecuniary benefits, there is no specific allegation

that the accused Nos.5 to 10 made any payment to the accused Nos.1

to 4. That apart, Section 8 of the PC Act was not invoked. There is

nothing on record to suggest that the order in question was passed by

the accused Nos.1 to 4 obtaining or accepting any undue advantage

from the accused Nos.5 to 10 as a reward for passing such an order.

Hence, Section 7 of the Amended Act also is not attracted. 

16. As stated already, the impugned order was passed by

accused No.1 and 2 in their capacity as the Chairman and Member of

the Taluk Land Board which is a quasi-judicial authority constituted

Crl.M.C.Nos.8766/2022, 

1338 & 1480/2023

-:22:-

under Section 100A of the KLR Act. No doubt, the proceeding under

Section 85(A) of the KLR Act is a legal proceeding. Hence, the

Chairman and Member of the Taluk Land Board would fall within the

definition of the ‘Judge’ in Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act,

1985 which refers to every person who is empowered by law to give a

definitive judgment in a legal proceeding. The Chairman and Member

of the Taluk Land Board are entitled to get protection under Section

3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 in respect of the order

passed by them under the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions

(See Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala 2021 (4) KLT 547). The

criminal prosecution against the accused Nos.1 and 2 is, thus, barred

under law and not maintainable.