Judgment : An application for condonation of delay was made vide Miscellaneous application no.1084 of 2007 in filing appeal against judgment and decree dated 26.9.2007 by Mr.Ramesh Chimanlal Shah and Ms.Sindhu Gajanan Pradhan, in which party in person Mr.Sharad Sadashiv Risbud was one of the respondents. The said application was allowed on costs of Rs.10,000/- by condoning delay of 10 days. The petitioner, party in person feels that the order is criminal misconduct on the part of the learned District Judge – 13, Pune. 2. Party in person arduously made submission to point how the learned District Judge erred in condoning delay precisely when the decree should have been drawn on 26.9.2007 itself as the judgment was delivered on that date. According to the party in person, even if the judges are protected under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection)Act,1985, however, the order is tantamount to criminal misconduct on the part of the learned Judge and warrants action. 3. In application for condonation of delay, the learned Judge observed that the adversaries (Mr.Shah and Mrs.Pradhan) were aged, infirm and could not prosecute the matter diligently. The learned Judge believed statement of adversary wherein Ramesh Shah has stated that there is no one to look after them. 4. The party in person (An Advocate) threadbare read and criticized evidence led before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for condonation of delay and how the learned Judge erred in accepting submissions to condone the delay. He says, there should not be too liberal approach in deflating Limitation Act as the Act provides for preventing disturbance and deprivation of what one party could acquire in equity and justice. The law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for redressal of legal remedy applied. 5. On evaluation of material, and the submissions of party in person, including the judgments of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Miscellaneous Application no.6 of 2013 dated 9.1.2013 and ACMA no.10 of 2013 below Exhibit no.3 dated 7.2.2013, I am of the considered opinion that there was no over-reaching by the Judicial Officer in this case to condone the delay. If he has erred, the aggrieved applicant has appropriate remedy of redressal. It basically cannot be said, the learned Judge while condoning the delay has abused his position as District Judge. If he has erred, the aggrieved applicant has appropriate remedy of redressal. It basically cannot be said, the learned Judge while condoning the delay has abused his position as District Judge. In fact, the orders of the learned District Judge dated 27.11.2012, has been challenged in this Court. 6. If investigation, as sought, in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is directed against a Judge, for his Judicial order, it would be a bizarre action if a Judge, having recorded an order, is hauled up in this manner, treating the order to be abuse of power or criminal misconduct. The scornful submissions canvassed against the learned District Judge is despondent. The Judicial Order while condoning delay being subject of questioning, as indicated, there would not be an infraction of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has to be read in consonance to the scheme of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, however, it cannot be brazenly applied to a judicial order recorded by the District Judge in the capacity as Judge, as Section deals with a public servant obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. The interpretation of “valuable thing” coming to the applicants in M.C.A. (adversary) was without any public interest is too far fetched, to accede. Even under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act no case is carved out as indicated above. 7. Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act,1985, contemplates as under:-“3. Additional protection to Judges-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-sec.(2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. (2) Nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.” 8. The order passed by the learned District Judge was within the parameters of powers vested to him and it being a judicial order has a protective umbrella from prosecution. It cannot be again said that act of the learned District Judge was beyond the powers vested in him or he crossed limitation of judicial discipline, to attract Section 197 of Cr.P.C. It is settled position, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the Court or malign the Presiding Officer, for not recording a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely, fairly and to their conscious if such activities are permitted by ensuing prosecution as the party in person desires. There may be a judicial error in the order, however, correction is provided in appropriate forum, such judicial error cannot be said to be deliberate, tantamount to misconduct. In a civilized system of administration of justice, a litigant cannot be permitted for forum shopping by making allegations to suit his purpose. The judicial powers exercised by the learned Judge were impartial and within the bounce of law. His interpretation to condone the delay or drawing of decree or not giving effect to the Limitation Act, would be question to be addressed before Superior Forum. 9. Survey of discussions illustrates, permission as sought through learned District Judge/learned Special Judge for inquiring into or causing any investigation under Section 202 or under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to determine sufficiency of ground for proceeding against respondent no.2 – District Judge, Pune, is rejected. Criminal Revision application is dismissed.