https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296373 A Collector or Special Officer making an award under the Land Acquisition Act performs administrative, not judicial, functions, so Section 77 IPC protection for a Judge was unavailable. The Supreme Court treated the acquisition award as an administrative inquiry and held that the officer was not acting as a Judge within the Penal Code. On the criminal allegations, the FIR did not prima facie disclose offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against respondents 1 and 2 because the complaint related to land outside their involvement. The quashing was therefore sustained for those respondents, while it was set aside for the Special Officer. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2021 12:48:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296373 A Collector or Special Officer making an award under the Land Acquisition Act performs administrative, not judicial, functions, so Section 77 IPC protection for a Judge was unavailable. The Supreme Court treated the acquisition award as an administrative inquiry and held that the officer was not acting as a Judge within the Penal Code. On the criminal allegations, the FIR did not prima facie disclose offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against respondents 1 and 2 because the complaint related to land outside their involvement. The quashing was therefore sustained for those respondents, while it was set aside for the Special Officer. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296373