Spens, C.J.-The only question which it is necessary to decide in this appeal is whether the proceedings out of which the appeal arises are “in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty” by the appellant as a servant of the Crown (section 270(1) of the Constitution Act).

The appellant was a station master at a steamer station on the O.T. Railway. The complaint alleges that on 25th July, 1944, the complainant with his wife and certain others proceeded to the station a short time before the steamer was due to leave, that he went to the booking office to purchase tickets, asking his wife and the rest of the party to wait at the jetty along with the luggage, that the booking clerk declined to issue tickets alleging that it was very near the time fixed for the steamer’s departure and that when he went to the jetty he found that his wife and the other people had already boarded the steamer with the luggage and accordingly he asked the station master to arrange for the issue of the tickets required. It will be convenient, in view of the arguments urged before us, to set out the rest of the complaint in full: He (the station master) gave a flat refusal and said that he could not do anything in the matter and when your petitioner repeated his request, he got annoyed and asked your petitioner to get out and then your petitioner wanted to go on the steamer to bring back the ladies and the luggage but the accused No. 1 (station master) resisted your petitioner’s going on the steamer and showed unsympathetic attitude and furious temper and went to the length of abusing your petitioner calling bad names such as “Badmash”, “Turn Kahan Jata Hai”, “Steamer per jaoge tab mar khaoge.” “(6) That your petitioner resented this and protested against the uncivil behaviour whereupon accused No. 1 called out a man Khalifa by name and other coolies and ordered them to beat your petitioner and on the order being issued accused No. 2 Khalifa and some coolies began to assault your petitioner and his companions. The accused No. 1 also assaulted your petitioner with slaps and gave fists and blows on the body of your petitioner and your petitioner’s brother.” After the appellant had been summoned, the magistrate expressed the view that sanction under section 270(1) of the Constitution Act was necessary for the institution of these proceedings. The complainant applied to the Government of Bihar for sanction; he was informed in reply “that he should seek his remedy in the superior Courts if his complaint is dismissed.” On production of the order, the magistrate discharged the accused, though it is not on record how exactly he interpreted this order.

On application to the Sessions Judge for further enquiry, he was of the opinion that no sanction was necessary in the case and he accordingly ordered a further enquiry. The station master carried the matter on revision before the High Court at Patna. The learned Judge of the High Court (Agarwala, J.) dismissed the petition, holding that section 270(1) could not be invoked in respect of an offence committed in 1944 because the “relevant date” referred to in that clause must be taken to be the date of Part III of the Act coming into force, viz., 1st April, 1937. This appeal has been filed against this order of the learned Judge and the correctness of his interpretation of the expression “relevant date” in its application to a railway servant has been questioned.

It has been contended that a railway servant is not a person “employed about the affairs of a Province” but one “employed about the affairs of the Federation” that according to clause (3) of section 270, “the relevant date” in the applicant’s case must be held to be the date of the establishment of the Federation and that therefore the act complained of is one done before the “relevant date.” By way of answer to this contention, it has been suggested that on a proper reading of clause (1) of section 270 the benefit of that secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document