Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 197 and 482 – Employee of Nationalized Bank charged u/ss. 201, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC – Application by accused seeking his discharge on the ground of non-compliance of s. 197 i.e. failure to seek sanction for his prosecution – Application dismissed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) – Upheld by High Court in petition u/s. 482 – On appeal, held: Employee, being not a public servant removable from his office saved by or with the sanction of the Government, s. 197 was not applicable – However, it was not correct for the CMM to make observation that the employee had committed forgery, at the stage when he was considering question of applicability of s. 197 – The Magistrate, at any stage, prior to the final trial, is to avoid any conclusive opinion regarding any evidence collected during investigation – However, such evidence can be looked into to form an opinion as to whether prima facie case is made out against the accused – Criminal Trial – Evidence.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.The appellant being not a public servant removable from his office saved by or with the sanction of the Government, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not applicable. The appellant cannot claim protection under Section
197 Cr.P.C. At the stage, when Court is considering the question regarding applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C., it was not necessary for the CMM to make observation that appellant has done an act of forgery. The FSL report was one of the evidences collected by I.O. Its evidentiary value was still to be gone into at the time of trial in the light of the evidences, which may come before the trial court. [Paras 11 and 13][1167-F-G; 1168-B] K.CH. Prasad v. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi and Others (1987) 2 SCC 52 : [1987] 2 SCR 216 – relied on.
2. The observation made by CMM by giving opinion using the expression that appellant has committed forgery ought to have been avoided. The Magistrate, at any stage prior to final trial, is to avoid any conclusive opinion regarding any evidence collected during investigation. It is true that evidence collected in the investigation can be looked into to form an opinion as to whether prima facie charge is made out against an accused and what is the nature of offence alleged against him. [Para 15] [1169-B-C]
S.P.S. Rathore v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2017) 5 SCC 817 : [2016] 5 SCR 335 – referred to.
3. Therefore, the court upholds the order of the CMM dated 03.12.2014 rejecting the application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. on the ground that appellant was not removable by his office saved by or with the sanction of the Government, is upheld. But the observations made by CMM in its order, as regards Commission of forgery against the accused, are deleted. [Paras 19 and 20][1170-F; 1171-A]
Parkash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (2007) 1 SCC 1 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 197; Inspector of Police and Another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Another (2015) 13 SCC 87; Devinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87 : [2016] 6 SCR 295 ; N. K. Ganguly v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2016) 2 SCC 143 : [2015] 10 SCR 192 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.