Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: function of functionary in V.Jayanandakumar vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2021Matching Fragments
9. It is well settled that an FIR registered by the police is only an initiation of a proceeding and for the purpose of carrying on the investigation. Eventhough the appellant has raised various contentions with respect to the protection, he is entitled to get, as per the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the protection provided thereunder for the official acts performed by the appellant, it is a subject matter of investigation by the Vigilance, and a writ court is not expected to rule upon such intrinsic aspects. That apart, the provisions of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 are to enable a Judge adjudicating a case to act without fear or favour and to protect from being harassed in any other manner while performing an official act and not otherwise. We also do not think that the provisions of Act, 1985 are to be extended to an official functionary, who fundamentally discharges administrative duties and conferred with implied duties of quasi judicial functions. Moreover the phraseology employed thereunder is a judgment rendered by a judge, which can never be an order passed or a decision taken by an administrative authority. Moreover, even assuming that the provisions of Act, 1985 can be extended to a quasi judicial functionary like the appellant, it can only be to the extent of protecting the official/judicial act to that extent and not outside the purview of the same. The protection provided under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is to sustain the confidence of the officers to function without fear or favour, however, it can never be extended to a person, who has indulged himself in any criminal activities. In our considered opinion, the allegations and attributions made in Exhibit P1 FIR against the appellant have no manner of correlation with the allegations contained in the previous FIR registered by the Wadakkanchery Police Station, wherein the appellant was discharged, and it was only in regard the losses suffered by the state consequent to breach of trust and cheating employed by the officials and others.