Official duty sanction protection fails where allegations of ticket refusal, abuse, and assault fall outside employment functions.

Proceedings against a railway station master were not protected by prior sanction where the complaint alleged refusal to issue tickets, abusive conduct, and assault, because those acts could not reasonably be treated as done or purported to be done in execution of official duty. The governing test is whether the complaint, as disclosed at institution, shows the impugned act falling within the scope of official duty; references to the Railways Act or railway traffic manual do not attract the sanction protection unless the complaint itself discloses such a case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings against a railway station master were barred for want of sanction under Section 270(1) of the Constitution Act on the ground that the alleged acts were done or purported to be done in the execution of official duty.

Analysis: The governing test is whether the prosecution case, as disclosed at the stage of institution, shows that the impugned act was done or purported to be done in execution of duty. The complaint alleged refusal to issue tickets, abusive conduct, and an assault on the complainant and others. On those allegations, the acts complained of could not reasonably be treated as acts done, or even purported to be done, in the execution of the appellant's duty as a servant of the Crown. References to the Railways Act and the railway traffic manual did not alter that conclusion, because the complaint itself did not disclose a case attracting the protection of the sanction provision.

Conclusion: Sanction under Section 270(1) of the Constitution Act was not required, and the appeal failed.

---