Sanction for prosecution does not extend to court-martial proceedings where the alleged acts are outside official duty.

Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was construed as applying to civil or criminal proceedings under the ordinary law, not to court-martial proceedings governed by military law. On that reading, prior sanction of the Governor-General was not required before trial, because the statutory safeguards and consequences in Section 270 were incompatible with military discipline and the need for prompt punishment under the Army Act. The same result followed independently because the charges concerned fraudulent misapplication of money entrusted to the accused, which could not reasonably be treated as acts done in the execution of official duty. The sanction challenge therefore failed, and the court-martial conviction was not open to attack on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 applied to court-martial proceedings against a British officer attached to the Indian Army, so as to require the Governor-General's sanction before trial.

Analysis: The provision was construed in its setting as referring to civil or criminal proceedings under the ordinary law of the land, not to proceedings under military law. A contrary reading would make the safeguards and consequences in Section 270 unworkable in the context of military discipline, since dismissal for want of good faith and an order for costs could not sensibly be applied to court-martial proceedings, and the need for speedy punishment under the Army Act would be defeated. The same conclusion followed even apart from that construction, because the charges concerned fraudulent misapplication of money entrusted to the appellant's care and were not acts done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown. The test applied under the analogous sanction provision in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was whether the act could reasonably be claimed as done by virtue of office, and these acts could not be so characterised.

Conclusion: Section 270 did not apply to the court-martial, no prior sanction of the Governor-General was required, and the conviction could not be challenged on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in limine on the jurisdictional challenge based on sanction, and the detention under the court-martial sentence was held lawful.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory sanction requirement for proceedings against a Crown servant does not extend to court-martial proceedings under military law, and it is unavailable where the alleged acts are not truly acts done in the execution of official duty.

---