1949 (11) TMI 20 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction and sentence by Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay.
2. Validity of proceedings due to lack of sanction under sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Abetment charge against the second Appellant.
4. Petition for special leave to appeal by both Appellants.
5. Granting of leave to appeal by Order in Council.
6. Requirement of sanction for prosecuting a public servant under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Argument regarding the legality of police investigation leading to trial.
8. Jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in trying the Appellants.
9. Consideration of procedural faults in the case.

Analysis:
The Appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for accepting a bribe and abetting the offense. The 1st Appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, citing grounds of invalid proceedings due to lack of sanction under sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and factual errors. The 2nd Appellant did not appeal but faced an enhanced sentence. Both Appellants sought special leave to appeal to the Privy Council, emphasizing the need for sanction and conflicting judicial opinions on sec. 197's interpretation.

The Privy Council granted leave to appeal to both Appellants. However, the Appellants' argument on the necessity of sanction under sec. 197 was rendered moot by a prior judgment. The Council allowed a new argument on the legality of the police investigation, alleging non-compliance with the Bombay City Police Act. The Appellants contended that the trial and conviction were void due to an illegal investigation, challenging the Magistrate's order authorizing the police inquiry.

The Privy Council determined that the new ground of appeal did not pertain to jurisdiction but rather procedural compliance. While acknowledging potential consequences of procedural faults, the Council held that such errors did not strip the Chief Presidency Magistrate of jurisdiction. Refusing to delve into unargued issues at the High Court level, the Council dismissed the appeal, citing established practice and lack of reference to procedural faults in the appeal petitions.