1948 (1) TMI 26 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Clause 18(2), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943; sufficiency of prosecution sanction under Section 23 of the Order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal Against Acquittal:
The appellant appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which set aside his acquittal by the City Magistrate of Sholapur and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Clause 18(2), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943.

2. Sufficiency of Prosecution Sanction:
The key issue revolved around the sufficiency of the prosecution sanction under Section 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. The sanction given by the Government of Bombay specified the appellant as the person to be prosecuted and the clause allegedly contravened but did not detail the acts constituting the contravention.

3. High Court's Decision:
The High Court held that the burden of proving the requisite sanction rested on the prosecution and required proof that the sanctioning authority was aware of the facts forming the basis of the prosecution. The Court concluded that the sanction was valid based on the evidence presented.

4. Privy Council's Analysis:
The Privy Council disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that the sanction must be given in respect of the facts constituting the offense charged. While the facts need not be explicitly stated in the sanction, the prosecution must prove, through extraneous evidence if necessary, that the sanctioning authority was aware of the facts.

5. Compliance with Clause 23:
The Privy Council clarified that the sanction is a condition precedent to prosecution, and the authority must have knowledge of the case's facts. Merely naming the person and specifying the provision breached is insufficient if the authority is unaware of the alleged acts constituting the offense.

6. Jurisdiction and Sanction:
The giving of sanction confers jurisdiction on the Court to try the case, and the charge need not mirror the exact terms of the sanction. However, the offense charged must align with the offense covered by the sanction.

7. Cure of Defect:
The respondent argued that any defect in the sanction could be cured under Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Privy Council rejected this argument, stating that a defect in jurisdiction cannot be rectified under this provision.

8. Decision and Recommendation:
The Privy Council advised allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and restoring the City Magistrate's acquittal. The Council found the sanction invalid due to lack of proof of the facts constituting the offense charged, rendering the trial court without jurisdiction.