When a fact has to be proved before a Court or a tribunal and the Court or the tribunal calls upon the person who is relying upon a fact to prove it […]
It is clear therefore that S. 56 (2) deals with cases where there is a doubt in the mind of the collector in regard to an instrument which comes up before him under the above provisions of the Act as to the construction of the instrument and the provisions of the Act applicable to it. Such doubt itself shows that the point raised for the Collector’s decision is a difficult point of law and from the very nature of the duty to be performed in such circumstances it appears clear that the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority has to decide the matter Judicially and would thus be a quasi-Judicial tribunal.
Judge took bribe
When a question wherefore arises as to whether an authority created by an Act is a Court as distinguished from a quasi-Judicial tribunal, what has to be decided is whether having regard to the provisions of the Act it possesses all the attributes of a Court.
The basic merit of the administration of criminal justice in the State lies in the face that the person arrested by the police is entitled to come before an independent and impartial Magistrate who is expected to deal with the case, without the Magistrate himself being in any way a partisan or a witness to police activities.