9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trial of the appellants without the sanction required by Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was illegal. 2. Whether the High Court can grant a certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, for leave to appeal to the Federal Court after the decision of the appeal. 3. Whether a substantial question of law was involved in the case. Analysis: 1. Legality of the Trial Without Sanction: The appellants were convicted of offenses under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code without obtaining the necessary sanction from either the Provincial or Central Government. The appellants argued that their actions were performed in their official capacity, thus requiring such sanction under Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935. However, this issue was neither raised during the trial nor in the appeal before the High Court. 2. High Court's Authority to Grant Certificate Post-Judgment: The applicants sought a certificate for leave to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, after the High Court had already delivered its judgment. The court examined whether it has the authority to grant such a certificate post-judgment. The court noted that the duty imposed by Section 205 is primarily to consider whether a substantial question of law is involved at the time of delivering the judgment. However, the court acknowledged that in exceptional cases, where the High Court failed to consider a substantial question of law that was reasonably probable to arise, it could rectify its mistake and grant a certificate later. 3. Substantial Question of Law: The court examined the meaning of "substantial question of law" as interpreted in various precedents. It concluded that a question of law must be crucial to the case itself and not merely a remote possibility. The court referred to several cases, including Hafiz Mohammad Ahmad Said Khan v. Shiam Lal and Errol Mackay v. Oswal Forbes, to assert that the importance of the question must be significant to the decision of the case. The court found that the question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 270 was not raised during the trial or appeal and thus was not involved in the case. The court also noted that the act of the appellants, forming an unlawful assembly and causing grievous hurt, could not be justified as acts done in the discharge of their official duties, thereby not necessitating the sanction under Section 270. Conclusion: The application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed. The court held that: - The trial without sanction under Section 270 was not illegal as the acts committed by the appellants did not fall within the scope of their official duties. - The High Court could grant a certificate post-judgment only in exceptional cases where a substantial question of law was reasonably probable to arise and was not considered at the time of judgment. - No substantial question of law was involved in this case as the issue was not raised during the trial or appeal, and the acts of the appellants did not require sanction under Section 270.
|
