Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Suraj Parkash Vs. Emperor

Suraj Parkash vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Jan 19, 1945
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/327267

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Government of India Act (26 Geo. V, c. 2), Section 270 - Prosecution-Sanction-Absence of sanction, effect of.;In cases to which Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, applies, the words of the section require that if proceedings be instituted before sanction under the section is obtained, such proceedings...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suraj Parkash

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
(1945)47BOMLR395

Excerpt

government of india act (26 geo. v, c. 2), section 270 - prosecution-sanction-absence of sanction, effect of.;in cases to which section 270 of the government of india act, 1935, applies, the words of the section require that if proceedings be instituted before sanction under the section is obtained, such proceedings are wholly void, and new proceedings must be instituted after the sanction is obtained. - patrick spens, kt., c.j.1. in this appeal it has been submitted that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that under order xvii, rule 1, it was presented out of time. it has also been questioned whether the order appealed against is a final order within the meaning of those words in section 205(1) of the government of india act, 1935. we do not propose to deal with either of those points, for in any event in our judgment the offence under section 408 on section 409 of the indian penal code with which the appellant is charged is not one in respect of which the protection of section 270 of the government of india act, 1985, can be claimed.-(see hori ram singh v. the crown (1939) f.c. 159 the appeal is accordingly dismissed.2. we would, however, take this opportunity of saying that in cases to which section 270 of the constitution act applies, the words of the section in our view require that if proceedings be instituted before sanction under the section is obtained, such proceedings are wholly void, and new proceedings must be instituted after the sanction is obtained. unless this view is strictly observed, the protection intended by the section would be liable to become in practice seriously reduced.

Full Judgment

Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.

1. In this appeal it has been submitted that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that under Order XVII, Rule 1, it was presented out of time. It has also been questioned whether the order appealed against is a final order within the meaning of those words in Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. We do not propose to deal with either of those points, for in any event in our judgment the offence under Section 408 on Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code with which the appellant is charged is not one in respect of which the protection of Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1985, can be claimed.-(See Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown (1939) F.C. 159 The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

2. We would, however, take this opportunity of saying that in cases to which Section 270 of the Constitution Act applies, the words of the section in our view require that if proceedings be instituted before sanction under the section is obtained, such proceedings are wholly void, and new proceedings must be instituted after the sanction is obtained. Unless this view is strictly observed, the protection intended by the section would be liable to become in practice seriously reduced.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial