This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 1091 of 1946. The relevant facts are these.

In 1936, the appellant was the Taluk Head Accountant, Madura Sub-Treasury. By a notification dated the 28th March, 1931 and published in the local Government Gazette, amongst others, the Taluk Head Accountants in the Sub-Treasuries mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ thereto were appointed to exercise the powers and perform the functions of licensing officers under the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931. Madura Sub-Treasury was mentioned in Schedule A. A licensing officer is defined in the said Act as an officer appointed by the Provincial Government to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a licensing officer under the Act. The appellant, although not appointed specifically by name, was thus authorized to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a licensing officer.

It was alleged on behalf of the Crown that between the 1st April, 1936, and 14th Octpber, 1936, the appellant, along with two others, conspired to commit criminal breach of trust and cheat and defraud the Provincial Government of the revenues due to it by way of motor tax on certain vehicles belonging to the Jai Vilas Motor Service, and in pursuance of that conspiracy committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly issuing motor licences without collecting in full the amount of tax due on them and cheated and defrauded the Provincial Government of its revenues to the extent of Rs. 3,942-4-0 by causing delivery of the licences on the false representation contained in the certificate of endorsement of payment of tax in the registration certificates of the vehicles concerned that full tax had been paid. The appellant was also charged with signing false certificates of payment of tax in the registration certificates and falsifying accounts by omitting to enter the particulars relating to such licences in the treasury accounts. On those allegations an information was filed charging the accused under sections 120(B), 420, 468, 197, 409 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter 37 witnesses were examined before the magistrate. After the proceedings thus went on for many days, two objections were put forward on behalf of the appellant. The first objection was on the ground that the consent of His Excellency the Governor was necessary under section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, but was not obtained. On the 28th February, 1946, the Magistrate upheld the objection in respect of charges under sections 409, 420, 197 and 477(A) but held that no such consent was required in respect of the charge under section 120(B). He directed the trial to proceed on the charge under that section only. The second objection was that the proceedings were against section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read with section 271 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The argument was that as the appellant was appointed to perform the duties of a motor licensing officer, he was a Government servant whose services could not be dispensed with by the District Collector. The objection would succeed if two conditions were satisfied: (1) That the petitioner was a public servant who could not be removed by the District Collector but was removable from his office only with the sanction of the Provincial Government or some higher authority. (2) He must be accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. If either condition was not satisfied, the section would not apply. That contention was rejected. A petition to revise the order was filed before the High Court. When the petition came for hearing before Kuppuswami Iyer, J., both parties agreed that evidence would be required to be taken on the contentions raised by the appellant and that the evidence was not on record. There was therefore a remand without deciding any of the questions