2012 (5) TMI 846 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner while passing an order under section 7A is a Judge within the definition under section 19 of the IPC & section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985?
2. Whether the averments made in the FIR even if they are taken at its face value, constitute an offence?
3. Whether the prosecution of the Petitioner only on the basis of the order passed under Section 7A is barred in view of section 77 of the Indian Penal Code or section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985?

Summary:

1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as a Judge:
The court examined whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) falls under the definition of a "Judge" as per section 19 of the IPC and section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The RPFC, while passing an order u/s 7A of the EPF & MP Act, exercises powers similar to those of a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The inquiry conducted is deemed a judicial proceeding, and the order passed is definitive and can be appealed. The court concluded that the RPFC is indeed a "Judge" within the meaning of the relevant sections.

2. Averments in the FIR:
The FIR alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with others, passed a favorable order to M/s Pratibha Industries Ltd., causing wrongful loss to EPFO. The court observed that the FIR was based solely on the judicial order passed by the petitioner and the CBI's recalculation of dues. The court stated that the CBI acted as an appellate body over the judicial order, which is not permissible. The court held that the averments in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence as they are directly hit by the legal bar u/s 77 of the IPC and section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

3. Prosecution Bar:
The court examined whether the prosecution of the petitioner based solely on the order passed u/s 7A is barred. It was held that the petitioner, being a "Judge" under the relevant sections, is protected from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of judicial functions. The court emphasized that the prosecution cannot be based on the judicial order itself unless there is material showing extraneous considerations. The court concluded that the prosecution is barred in view of section 77 of the IPC and section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR, making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).