S.K. MIGLANI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 06.08.2018 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order dated 03.12.2014 and 13.12.2014 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi and further to quash the F.I.R. No. 432 of 2000 under Sections 201, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and the charge sheet.

(2.) The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted are:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the appellant, who was working as a Branch Manager in Bank of Baroda had permitted opening of a savings account No. 33604 in discharge of his official duty. The appellant being a public servant, sanction ought to have been obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the appellant. It is submitted that although sanction has been obtained with regard to DDA officials, but no sanction has been obtained for the appellant. He submits that CMM committed error in rejecting the application of the appellant for discharge due to want of sanction. It is further submitted that the appellant's name came only in the supplementary charge sheet and allegations are only with regard to opening of a savings bank account. Investigation Agency has obtained opinion of handwriting experts with respect to signatures of Gautam Dhar on the account opening form and the specimen signatures of the appellant. It is submitted that in the report dated 30.12.2002, which was received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with regard to signatures of Gautam Dhar on the account opening form and with the specimen signatures of the appellant, it has been mentioned in the report that it has not been possible to express a definite opinion on rest of the items on the basis of materials at hand. It is submitted that although the said report was very much with the I.O., another report was called for from the Chief Forensic Scientist and Director (FS) to seek further opinion from GEQD, Shimla. It is submitted that the report has been submitted by letter dated 29.10.2003 opining that the signatures of Gautam Dhar in the account opening form tallies with the specimen signatures of the appellant. He submits that the subsequent report, which was sent by letter dated 29.10.2003 could not have been relied, since in the signature of Gautam Dhar in the account opening form and signatures of the appellant there is no similarity. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, opinion of a handwriting expert is only an opinion evidence, which is a weak nature of evidence and could not have been relied in rejecting the claim of the appellant that he has opened the account in exercise of his official duty. It is further submitted that the CMM in his order dated 03.12.2014 has held that forgery has been committed by the appellant in sanctioning the account opening form. It is submitted that appellant has been held guilty before even trial has proceeded.