IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
In Re: K. Sannaya
Versus
Decided On : 04.09.1940
Consent of Governor-General - Criminal Offences - Postman misappropriating money order - Use of forged document in execution of duty - Necessity of Governor-General's consent for prosecution under Section 471 of IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Postman, was charged with offences under Sections 409, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating a money order by forging the payee's thumb impression and using the forged document in token of payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relevant date for the application of Section 270, Clause 3 of the Government of India Act was before the establishment of the Federation. The petitioner, being a servant of the Crown in a department of the Central Government, required the consent of the Governor-General for prosecution under Section 471 of the IPC, but not for the offences under Sections 409 and 467.
Issues: The issues involved the necessity of the Governor-General's consent for prosecution under Section 471 of the IPC and the applicability of Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act to the petitioner's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act and held that the consent of the Governor-General was necessary for the prosecution under Section 471 of the IPC, but not for the other charges under Sections 409 and 467.
Final Decision: The court decided that the trial could proceed in respect of the charges under Sections 409 and 467 of the IPC, but the consent of the Governor-General was necessary for the prosecution under Section 471.
Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The petitioner is a Postman attached to the Coondapur Sub-Post Office and a charge sheet has been filed against him for offences under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating the amount of a money order entrusted to him by forging the thumb impression of the payee in the money order form and using the forged document by returning it to the post office in token of payment.
2. The offences were committed on 10th April, 1939, that is, before the relevant date as defined in Section 270, Clause 3 of the Government of India Act, which in relation to acts done by persons employed about the affairs of the Government of India is the date of the establishment of the Federation, and being a servant of the Crown in a department of the Central Government the petitioner would unquestionably be a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of India. Section 270(1) provides that 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 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, of the Governor-General in his discretion and the forged document was used in the execution of the duty of the petitioner as Postman of returning the paid money order forms to the Post Office in token of having made the payment. The consent of the Governor-General is therefore necessary for the prosecution for the offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, but there is no bar to the trial of the offence under Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial can proceed in respect of these charges.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.