Judicial officers' protection depends on a judicial act and jurisdiction; an arrest ordered on executive directions was not protected.

Protection under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 applies only to acts done by a Judge or Magistrate while acting judicially. If the act is within jurisdiction, protection is absolute; if outside jurisdiction, it depends on a good faith belief in jurisdiction. On the facts, no complaint or police report had been received, no cognizance had been taken under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the arrest direction was issued in pursuance of executive instructions rather than as a judicial order. The direction was therefore not a judicial act under the Code, and the officer was not entitled to statutory protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 for ordering the respondent's arrest, and whether that order was made in the discharge of his judicial duty after taking cognizance of an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Protection under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 extends only to acts done by a Judge or Magistrate while acting judicially. Where the act is within jurisdiction, the protection is absolute; where it is outside jurisdiction, protection is available only if the officer in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction. On the facts, no formal complaint or police report had been received, no cognizance of an offence had been taken under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the record showed that the appellant acted in pursuance of executive directions rather than as a Magistrate exercising judicial power. The direction to arrest was therefore not referable to a judicial order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion: The appellant was not acting in the discharge of his judicial duty and was not entitled to the protection of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850.

---