The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility of evidence in a conspiracy charge is crucial, and without admissible evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained.

Lord Simonds.-

This appeal which is brought from a judgment of the Federal Court of India dated 11 - 12 - 1946, raises questions of difficulty and general importance. They relate in the first place to the problem which has so often been debated in the Courts of India in regard to the meaning and effect of S. 197, Criminal PC, and in the second place to the admisaibility of evidence upon a charge of conspiracy.

[2] The nature of the case demands that the facts should be set out at some length. As a result of the judgment now under appeal the appellants H. H. B. Gill and A. Lahiri stand convicted for offences under S. 165 read with S. 120B, Penal Code.

[3] The appellant Gill joined the Indian Army Ordnance Corps in December 1939. He was appointed staff Captain in the Contracts Directorate from January 1940, and in April 1941, he was given the temporary rank of Major as Deputy Assistant Director of Contracts at Calcutta. In this office he was responsible for the issue and acceptance of tenders for purchase of material in compliance with indents made by the proper authorities.

[4] The appellant Lahiri is the proprietor of the Baranagore Engineering Works. In that capacity he obtained numerous contracts for supplying Government requisites through the appellant Gill and other officers.

[5] As a result of secret enquiries which, for reasons that need not be further investigated, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Calcutta, thought fit to make into the affairs of Gill, it was found that Gill had on 21 - 5 - 1941, received from Lahiri a cheque for Rs. 500. A search warrant was then obtained for the search of Lahiri's house. The warrant was executed on 11 - 10 - 1942, and the police took possession of a diary kept by Lahiri and of the counterfoils of his cheque book in which there were notes purporting to refer to Gill in the handwriting of Lahiri. Upon these materials with others to which reference will be made it was determined that criminal proceedings should be instituted against Gill and Lahiri and accordingly steps were taken to obtain what were thought (so far as Gill was concerned) to be the necessary consent and sanction under S. 270, Government of India Act, 1935, and S. 197, Criminal P. C. as amended by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937. It is convenient to set out these sections. They are as follows:

Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

"Indemnity for past acts.-(1) No proceedings civil or criminal shall be instituted against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown in India or Burma before the relevant date, except with the consent, in the case of a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of India or the affairs of Burma, of the Governor - General in his discretion, and in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a Province, of the Governor of that Province in his discretion."

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended):

"(1) When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of S. 197 I.P.C., or when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a Provincial Government or some higher authority, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the federation, of the Governor - General exercising his individual judgment; and

(b) in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of a Province, of the Governor of that Province exercising his individual judgment.

(2) The Governor - General or Governor, as the case may be, execrcising his individual judgment may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, the offence or offences f