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.

In Re: K. Sannaya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 04, 1940
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788067

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
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: K. Sannaya

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1941Mad38; (1940)2MLJ564

Excerpt

- orderlakshmana rao, j.1. the petitioner is a postman attached to the coondapur sub-post office and a charge sheet has been filed against him for offences under sections 409, 467 and 471 of the indian penal code for misappropriating the amount of a money order entrusted to him by forging the thumb impression of the payee in the money order form and using the forged document by returning it to the post office in token of payment.2. the offences were committed on 10th april, 1939, that is, before the relevant date as defined in section 270, clause 3 of the government of india act, which in relation to acts done by persons employed about the affairs of the government of india is the date of the establishment of the federation, and being a servant of the crown in a department of the central government the petitioner would unquestionably be a person employed in connection with the affairs of the government of india. section 270(1) provides that no proceedings civil or criminal shall be instituted against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the crown in india before the relevant date except with the consent in the case of a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the government of india, of the governor-general in his discretion and the forged document was used in the execution of the duty of the petitioner as postman of returning the paid money order forms to the post office in token of having made the payment. the consent of the governor-general is therefore necessary for the prosecution for the offence under section 471 of the indian penal code, but there is no bar to the trial of the offence under sections 409 and 467 of the indian penal code, and the trial can proceed in respect of these charges.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The petitioner is a Postman attached to the Coondapur Sub-Post Office and a charge sheet has been filed against him for offences under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating the amount of a money order entrusted to him by forging the thumb impression of the payee in the money order form and using the forged document by returning it to the post office in token of payment.

2. The offences were committed on 10th April, 1939, that is, before the relevant date as defined in Section 270, Clause 3 of the Government of India Act, which in relation to acts done by persons employed about the affairs of the Government of India is the date of the establishment of the Federation, and being a servant of the Crown in a department of the Central Government the petitioner would unquestionably be a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of India. Section 270(1) provides that no proceedings civil or criminal shall be instituted against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown in India before the relevant date except with the consent in the case of a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of India, of the Governor-General in his discretion and the forged document was used in the execution of the duty of the petitioner as Postman of returning the paid money order forms to the Post Office in token of having made the payment. The consent of the Governor-General is therefore necessary for the prosecution for the offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, but there is no bar to the trial of the offence under Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial can proceed in respect of these charges.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial