Bank manager accused of forgery can't get sanction shield, Supreme Court says

He was a public servant. He asked for sanction before trial. The Supreme Court said — no.

The cheque was for Rs 2,22,263. It was a DDA refund — money meant for the original allottee of a Delhi flat. The year was 2000. Someone opened a fictitious savings account at a Bank of Baroda branch in Faridabad, in the name of one Gautam Dhar. The man who allegedly opened it was the branch manager himself: S.K. Miglani. The cheque was encashed.

Nineteen years later, in 2019, Miglani stood before the Supreme Court with a single legal shield. He argued that as a public servant, he could not be prosecuted without prior government sanction under Section 197 CrPC (a provision requiring government approval before a court can take cognizance of an offence against certain public servants). The Court examined the shield — and found it did not fit.

FIR 432/2000 — the manager's name appears

The case began on November 15, 2000, at PS Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. A charge sheet was filed. Then a supplementary charge sheet added Miglani's name. The allegation: he forged the account opening form so someone else could pocket the DDA refund cheque. The charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet were filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) at Saket Court, New Delhi.

Miglani was charged under six sections of the Indian Penal Code: Section 465 (forgery), Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), Section 420 (cheating), Section 467 (forgery of a valuable security), Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and Section 471 (using a forged document as genuine). The CMM framed charges under Sections 465 and 120-B IPC on December 13, 2014, while leaving the other sections undisturbed.

Before trial could begin, Miglani went to the CMM at Saket Court, New Delhi. On December 3, 2014, he asked for discharge. His argument: the entire prosecution was invalid because the government had not granted sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The courtroom that day was heavy with the smell of old case files — the CMM's desk stacked with the investigation material, the FSL report folder thin and light in the hand, its pages barely a dozen.

The single question that decided everything

Could a nationalized bank manager claim the same protection as a government servant who can only be removed by the government itself?

Section 197 CrPC creates a procedural barrier. Before a court can take cognizance of an offence committed by a judge or a public servant in the discharge of official duties, the government must grant prior sanction. The idea: protect honest public servants from frivolous prosecutions that could disrupt governance.

But the provision does not apply to every person who happens to be a public servant. It applies only to those who are "not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government." That distinction — between a public servant removable by the government and one removable by a bank board or managing director — became the battlefield.

The Supreme Court's ratio on this point was unequivocal: "Section 197 CrPC is attracted only in cases where the public servant is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government." The Court's tone in that sentence was flat, final — the kind of judicial certainty that leaves no room for argument.

"You have committed forgery" — the trial court's error

On December 3, 2014, the CMM rejected Miglani's discharge application. Ten days later, on December 13, 2014, the court framed charges against him under Sections 465 and 120-B IPC. But the CMM's order went further. It made a conclusive observation that Miglani had committed forgery, based on a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report that was part of the investigation material. The forged form itself — a single sheet of paper with a signature that did not belong to Gautam Dhar — sat in the evidence file, its edges worn from handling, the ink on the signature line slightly smudged.

Miglani moved the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC (the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of its process). On August 6, 2018, the High Court dismissed his petition. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

The conversation at the Supreme Court

Miglani's counsel argued: as a branch manager of a nationalized bank, he was a public servant. The acts alleged — opening an account, processing a cheque — were part of his official duties. Therefore, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory. Its absence made the entire prosecution void.

The prosecution countered: Section 197 CrPC has a threshold condition. The public servant must be one who cannot be removed except by or with government sanction. A bank manager is appointed and removed by the bank's board or managing director, not by the government. The condition was not satisfied.

The Supreme Court turned to its own precedents. In K.CH. Prasad v. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi (1987) 2 SCC 52, the Court had already held that a nationalized bank employee, even if a public servant, does not meet the threshold for Section 197 protection. The Court also cited Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1, S.P.S. Rathore v. CBI (2017) 5 SCC 817, N.K. Ganguly v. CBI (2016) 2 SCC 143, Inspector of Police v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam (2015) 13 SCC 87, Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87, and the R.S. Nayak case (1984) 2 SCC 183 — all reinforcing the same principle. The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph sat in a courtroom that fell silent as the judgment was dictated, the only sound the rustle of paper as the operative order was read aloud.

The Court was clear: when a public servant does not fulfill the threshold condition of being removable only by or with government sanction, the court need not even examine the further question of whether the acts complained of were in discharge of official duty. The inquiry stops at the first step.

The verdict — and the undoing

On April 30, 2019, in S.K. Miglani v. State NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2019), the bench partly allowed Miglani's appeal. The Court upheld the rejection of the sanction argument. Miglani could not claim protection under Section 197 CrPC. The trial could proceed.

But the Court did something else. It deleted the CMM's conclusive observations that Miglani had committed forgery based on the FSL report. The Court held that a magistrate, at any stage prior to final trial, must avoid making definitive findings of guilt. While investigation material can be examined to form a prima facie opinion on whether charges should be framed, a conclusive opinion on guilt is impermissible before trial. Those observations were struck from the record — erased from the CMM's order dated December 3, 2014, as if they had never been written.

The High Court's order was upheld — but only after the deletion of those premature observations.

What this means for every public servant accused of a crime

Section 197 CrPC is not a blanket shield for every government employee or public sector worker. The protection is reserved for those whose removal from office requires government sanction — typically senior officers, judges, and constitutional functionaries. A branch manager of a nationalized bank, a clerk in a public sector undertaking, or a lower-level government employee who can be removed by a departmental head does not qualify.

THE PLAY: Before claiming Section 197 CrPC protection, check who has the power to remove you from office — if it is not the government, the shield does not exist.

The Court ended where it began: with a bank manager, a forged form, and a cheque that never reached its owner.