Summary
A nationalised-bank manager who was not removable only by or with government sanction could not claim Section 197 CrPC protection merely as a public servant. That threshold resolved the sanction objection without deciding whether the alleged acts were official duties. The prosecution continued, but the Magistrate’s conclusive observations that the manager had committed forgery were deleted. The handwriting opinion’s evidentiary weight remained for trial.
Issues
- Whether the bank manager met Section 197’s protected-service-status requirement.
- Whether the Magistrate should have conclusively attributed forgery while deciding the sanction objection.
Provisions considered
- Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Protection did not extend to this manager because he was not removable only by or with government sanction; the official-duty nexus issue consequently did not arise. (¶¶ 8–11, 18–19)
Held
- Public-servant status alone was insufficient. Applying K.CH. Prasad, the manager failed the additional requirement concerning removal by or with government sanction and therefore could not invoke Section 197. (¶ 9–11)
- Once that threshold failed, it was unnecessary to determine whether opening the disputed account or other alleged conduct was in discharge of official duties. (¶¶ 9, 11, 18)
- The FSL handwriting report was evidence whose weight remained to be evaluated at trial. The Magistrate could assess a prima facie charge but should not express a conclusive finding that forgery had been committed. (¶ 12–15)
- Rejection of the sanction application and the High Court order stood, subject to deletion of the quoted prejudicial observations. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeal partly allowed only to delete the specified conclusive forgery observations from the Magistrate’s order. Rejection of the Section 197 application and the High Court order otherwise upheld; prosecution not quashed.