S. Kumar Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court held that Executive Officer acting as a quasi judicial authority would fall within the ambit of the term ‘Judge’ under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 hence shielded and accordingly, no civil or criminal proceedings can be initiated.
Facts- The present application is filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order contained in memo dated 28.12.2020, passed by the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Bihar whereby sanction for prosecution under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, has been granted against the present petitioner.
Conclusion- It is clear that to fall within the category of a “Judge,” it is not necessary that a person be formally designated as such. Any person who is legally empowered, in the course of a legal proceeding, to render a definitive judgment would be regarded as a Judge. A careful analysis of the definition thus indicates 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, for the purposes of the definition of this Act, would be deemed to be a Judge.
