1948 (2) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Privy Council quashes convictions citing evidential issues, no need for sanction.

H.H.B. Gill and Ors. Versus The King

The Privy Council allowed the appeals, quashing the convictions of both appellants under Section 120B read with Section 165, Penal Code. It held that no ... - Issues Involved:1. Necessity of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).2. Admissibility of evidence, particularly Lahiri's notes, in a conspiracy charge.3. Competence of the Magistrate to alter charges and convict under different sections.4. Whether the acts done by the appellants fell within the scope of their official duties.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Necessity of Sanction under Section 197, CrPC:The case examined whether sanction was necessary for the institution of proceedings against Gill under Section 197, CrPC. The High Court held that sanction was necessary but the sanction given was sufficient to cover the subsequent proceedings. The Federal Court, however, did not find it necessary to discuss the necessity of such sanction but opined that the sanction given enabled the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences set out in the sanction. The Privy Council concluded that no sanction under Section 197 was needed, aligning with the Federal Court's reasoning that acts such as receiving illegal gratification could not be justified as acts done by virtue of the office held.2. Admissibility of Evidence:The admissibility of Lahiri's notes as evidence against Gill was a crucial issue. The Chief Presidency Magistrate admitted these notes under Sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act, considering them as facts tending to show the intention or lack of good faith of the parties. The High Court also admitted these notes, stating they were explicable only on the hypothesis that Lahiri gave the amounts mentioned to Gill. However, the Privy Council found that the notes were admissible against Lahiri but not against Gill unless Section 10 of the Evidence Act could be invoked. Since the High Court accepted Gill's explanation regarding the specific charge, it left no material to believe that Gill and Lahiri conspired to commit an offence, rendering the notes inadmissible against Gill.3. Competence of the Magistrate to Alter Charges:The case involved the alteration of charges by the Magistrate. Initially, charges were framed under Section 161 and Section 120B read with Section 420. Upon remand, the charges were altered to Section 120B read with Section 161 and Section 165. The High Court justified the alteration under Section 238 of the CrPC, which allows for a new or altered charge if the facts support it. The Privy Council agreed that the subsequent proceedings were justified by the sanction given and that the same facts were before the sanctioning authority when the sanction was given.4. Scope of Official Duties:The issue also examined whether the acts done by Gill fell within the scope of his official duties. The Federal Court and the Privy Council both concluded that acts such as receiving illegal gratification could not be considered acts done in the execution of official duties. The Privy Council emphasized that a public servant can only be said to act in the discharge of his official duty if the act lies within the scope of his duty, which was not the case here.Conclusion:The Privy Council allowed the appeals, quashing the convictions of both Gill and Lahiri under Section 120B read with Section 165, Penal Code. The Board found that no sanction under Section 197, CrPC, was necessary and that the evidence (Lahiri's notes) was inadmissible against Gill without invoking Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, without this evidence, there was no material to convict Gill of conspiracy, and thus, Lahiri's conviction also fell.