LexS. K. MIGLANI versus STATE NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
S. K. MIGLANI
v.
STATE NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2019)
APRIL 30, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
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]
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1158
1158
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
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.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 197 relied on
Para 4
[1987] 2 SCR 216
relied on
Para 10
[2016] 5 SCR 335
referred to
Para 14
(2015) 13 SCC 87
relied on
Para 16
[2016] 6 SCR 295
relied on
Para 16
[2015] 10 SCR 192
relied on
Para 17
S. K. MIGLANI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.744 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.572 of 2015
Ajayinder Sangwan, Rajkumar Sharma, V.P. Singh, T.P. Singh,
Sachin Choudhary, Summinder Paswan, Pradeep Kumar Shrama,
Amuridh Kumar, Devendra Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. Balaji, Nachiketa Joshi, Praneet Pranav, B.V. Balaram Das,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 06.08.2018 dismissing the
application filed by tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.