Illegal gratification outside official duty bars sanction objections, while unsatisfactory accomplice evidence can leave bribery unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

Protection for acts done in official duty did not extend to receipt of illegal gratification, so objections based on want of consent under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, failed. The accused also did not show that he fell within the class covered by Section 197, and the special procedure under Ordinance 29 of 1943 excluded that provision in any event. On the merits, the bribery charge failed because the accomplice evidence was unsatisfactory and self-contradictory, and the surrounding circumstances left a reasonable possibility that the money was received as a deposit on account of demurrage. The conviction could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution was barred by want of consent under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, or by want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (ii) Whether the charge under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution was barred by want of consent under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, or by want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The protection under Section 270(1) applied only to acts done or purported to be done in execution of official duty. Receiving illegal gratification was not an official act or an act done in the execution of duty, even if the accused held public office. As to Section 197, the accused did not establish that he belonged to the class of officers protected by the provision, and in any event the special procedure created by Ordinance 29 of 1943, read with the saving in Section 1(2) of the Code and Section 6(2) of the Ordinance, excluded the applicability of Section 197 to these proceedings.

Conclusion: The objections based on consent and sanction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested substantially on the testimony of an accomplice, which was found to be unsatisfactory and self-contradictory on material particulars. The surrounding circumstances relied upon by the Tribunal did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the money was received as a deposit on account of demurrage honestly believed to be due or likely to become due. The record left material doubt on the factual basis of the alleged illegal gratification, and the prosecution failed to exclude innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The charge was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal with consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Protection for acts done in official duty does not extend to receipt of illegal gratification, and a conviction for bribery cannot stand where a reasonable possibility remains that the money was received for an innocent purpose and guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---