JUDGMENT

Spens, C.J. - The appellant in this case, A.W. Meads, was in April 1943 a Captain holding the temporary rank of Major in the Royal Engineers, and was attached to No. 1 Works Service (E. & M.) Group, I.E. In October 1943, he was charged with four offences under the Army Act. The charges, without the particulars which are not material to this judgment, were as follows:

2. 1st Charge, A.A. Section 17.-When on active service, when concerned in the care of public property, fraudulently misapplying the same.

3. 2nd Charge, A.A. Section 40 alternative to 1st charge-When on active service, neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.

4. 3rd Charge, A.A. Section 17.-When on active service, when concerned in the care of regimental property, fraudulently misapplying the same.

5. 4th Charge, A.A. Section 40 alternative to 3rd charge-When on active service, neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.

6. The appellant was ordered to be tried by a Field General Court-martial. He was in due course so tried and was convicted in respect of the two offences charged under Section 17, Army Act, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and to be cashiered. The appellant thereupon filed a petition in the High Court at Lahore under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The important point raised on the hearing of that petition before the High Court was that the act complained of was committed by the appellant in the execution or purported execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown in India and that accordingly under Section 270(1), Government of India Act, 1935, the Court-martial proceedings could not legally and properly be instituted against him without the previous consent of the Governor-General in his discretion. Section 270(1) runs as follows: "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 connexion 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 connexion with the affairs of a Province, of the Governor of that Province in his discretion.

7. The short but Very important point so raised before the High Court at Lahore is whether the Court-martial proceedings in question were criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 270(1). The petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C. was referred to a Pull Bench of the Lahore High Court consisting of Sir Trevor Harries C.J., Abdur Rahman and Mehr Chand Mahajan JJ. In a very full and careful judgment it was decided on 12th April 1944 that the Court-martial proceedings in question were not criminal proceedings within Section 270(1) and that there was no substance in this contention of the appellant. In his petition under Section 491. the appellant also took other points as to the validity of the manner of constitution and proceedings of the Field General Court-martial. These too were all carefully considered by the Full Bench of the High Court who could find no legal substance in them. Accordingly, on 24th April 1944, the petition of the appellant was dismissed but a certificate under Section 205(1), Constitution Act, was granted in respect of the question raised in regard to Section 270(1), and from that order the appellant has appealed to this Court.

8. The appellant appeared and argued his case in person before us. In the Court below it had been argued on behalf of the appellant that all Court-martial proceedings under the Army Act were criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 270(1). But in view of the amazing consequences which, it was pointed out by the High Court, must result if this contention were right, the appellant before us limited his submissions and argued to the effect that (a) the acts on which