1945 (11) TMI 12 - Other - Indian Laws

Court rules station master's conduct not in line with duty under Constitution Act, denies legal protection

Sarjoo Prasad Versus Emperor

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's actions as a station master at the steamer station did not constitute acts done in the ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 270(1) of the Constitution Act regarding acts done in the execution of duty by a servant of the Crown.2. Requirement of sanction under Section 270(1) for the institution of proceedings.3. Determination of the relevant date for invoking Section 270(1) in the case of a railway servant.4. Application of the test laid down in Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor for determining if an act is done or purporting to be done in the execution of duty.5. Assessment of whether the act complained of in the case falls under the protection of Section 270(1).6. Consideration of the defense raised by the appellant based on Railways Act provisions and Railway Traffic Manual rules.Analysis:1. The central issue in this appeal was the interpretation of Section 270(1) of the Constitution Act, specifically whether the appellant's actions at the steamer station constituted acts done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown. The complaint alleged that the appellant, a station master, refused to issue tickets and engaged in physical and verbal abuse towards the complainant and his companions. The court examined the nature of the appellant's actions to determine if they fell within the scope of duty as defined by the law.2. The Magistrate initially raised the question of whether sanction under Section 270(1) was required for instituting proceedings against the appellant. The complainant sought sanction from the Government of Bihar, but the response directed him to seek remedy in superior courts. Subsequently, the accused was discharged by the Magistrate based on the interpretation of this response. The Sessions Judge ordered further inquiry without requiring sanction, leading to the appeal before the High Court and subsequently the Federal Court.3. Another critical aspect was the determination of the relevant date for applying Section 270(1) in the context of a railway servant. The High Court judge held that the relevant date must be the establishment of the Federation, while the appellant argued for a different interpretation. The Federal Court did not delve into this issue extensively as it found the act in question did not fall under the protection of Section 270(1).4. The court referenced the Hori Ram Singh case to apply a test for assessing whether the act complained of was done or purporting to be done in the execution of duty. It emphasized that the applicability of Section 270(1) must be determined at the earliest stage of institution based on the prosecution case presented. The court concluded that the appellant's actions did not meet the criteria of being in the execution of duty.5. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court determined that the act complained of could not be considered as one done or purporting to be done by the appellant in the execution of his duty. The court scrutinized the details of the incident and found that the appellant's conduct did not align with the requirements of Section 270(1) protection.6. The appellant's defense, citing provisions of the Railways Act and Railway Traffic Manual rules, was also considered. The court highlighted that merely raising a defense of acting in the execution of duty was not sufficient to warrant protection under Section 270(1). The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the complaint did not establish that the appellant's actions were within the scope of duty as required by the law.