Quasi-judicial confiscation powers attract Judges Protection Act immunity, barring criminal proceedings for acts done in that statutory capacity.

An authority exercising confiscation power under the Sand Act after notice and opportunity, with revision and appeal provided by statute, performs a quasi-judicial function affecting civil rights. Applying the settled test for judicial and quasi-judicial acts, the Kerala HC held that such an officer falls within the protection of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Criminal prosecution for acts done in that capacity could not be sustained without the statutory protection applicable to protected judicial functions, and the FIR and further proceedings were quashed. The ruling also noted that the State Government's liberty under the saving clause in Section 3(2) remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings arising from the FIR against the Revenue Divisional Officer, while exercising confiscation powers under the Sand Act, were liable to be quashed on the ground that the function was quasi-judicial and attracted protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The power exercised under Section 23A of the Sand Act involved determination of rights after notice and opportunity, with revision and appeal provided under Sections 23B and 23C. Applying the settled criteria for identifying a judicial or quasi-judicial act, the Court held that an authority deciding confiscation disputes under a statute in a manner affecting civil rights, and subject to statutory remedies, functions as a quasi-judicial authority. On that basis, the officer fell within the protective ambit of Section 2(a) and Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and criminal prosecution for acts done in that capacity could not be sustained without the legal protection applicable to such functions.

Conclusion: The FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed as the statutory function was held to be quasi-judicial and protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms immunity from criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of protected quasi-judicial functions, while preserving the State Government's liberty to take action under the saving clause in Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an authority exercises a statutory power that determines rights after notice and opportunity, and the statute provides revision and appeal, the function is quasi-judicial and attracts protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

---