1947 (12) TMI 11 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of consent from the Governor under Section 270(1), Government of India Act.
2. Applicability of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935.
4. Definition and interpretation of "judgment, decree or final order" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Necessity of Consent from the Governor under Section 270(1), Government of India Act:
The appellant contended that the prosecution could not be launched without the consent of His Excellency the Governor of Madras. This was based on the argument that the evidence for the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was the same as that for criminal breach of trust and other charges, which required the Governor's consent. The High Court overruled this objection, holding that no such consent was necessary for the charge under Section 120B IPC.

2. Applicability of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellant argued that the proceedings were against Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 271, Government of India Act, 1935. The contention was that as a motor licensing officer, the appellant was a government servant who could not be removed by the District Collector without the sanction of the Provincial Government or a higher authority. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the appellant did not satisfy both conditions required under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The Court examined whether the appeal was from a "judgment, decree or final order" of the High Court. The Court referred to various judicial interpretations, including Salaman v. Warner, Bozson v. The Altrincham Urban District Council, and Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand, to ascertain the meaning of "final order." The Court concluded that an order is final if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties. The Court held that the order from the High Court did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties but left them to be determined by the Courts in the ordinary way.

4. Definition and Interpretation of "Judgment, Decree or Final Order" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935:
The Court discussed the meaning of "judgment, decree or final order" in the context of both civil and criminal cases. It referred to the definitions in the Civil Procedure Code and various English and Indian judicial decisions. The Court emphasized that in criminal proceedings, a "judgment" indicates the final order in a trial terminating in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. The Court concluded that the order in question was not a "judgment" or "final order" as it was an interlocutory order made on a preliminary objection in the course of a criminal trial. The Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal, stating that the order did not meet the criteria of a "final order" or "judgment" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as the order from the High Court was not considered a "judgment, decree or final order" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935. The Court's interpretation of these terms was consistent with established judicial precedents, and the appellant's arguments for a broader interpretation were rejected.