Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 19.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Ujjal Kumar Ghosh (Assistant General Manager, Branch Head, Bank of Baroda, Camac Street) and an unnamed second petitioner (Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, EZ office, Kolkata).
  • Opposite Party No.1: Umesh Chandra Mohapatra, Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, who lodged a written complaint on 17.04.2018 on behalf of a consortium of Bank of Baroda, IDBI Bank Ltd., and ICICI Bank Ltd. against M/s. M.K. Patel Exim Pvt. Ltd. for alleged fraud involving credit facilities of Rs. 69 crore.
  • The complaint alleged diversion of funds, misuse of letters of credit, and classification of the loan as an NPA. The matter was reported to the RBI.
  • CBI registered FIR (CBI/BSFB/Kolkata Case No. RCBSK2018E0004) on 17.04.2018 under IPC Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and PC Act Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d). Petitioners were not named in the FIR.
  • Charge Sheet No. 03 of 2020 dated 31.12.2020 added the petitioners as accused under the same IPC sections and PC Act sections.
  • The competent authority (Bank of Baroda MD & CEO Sanjib Chadda and General Manager) declined to grant sanction for prosecution under the PC Act, leading to dropping of those charges on 04.02.2023.
  • The case was transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and then to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Calcutta. The magistrate took cognizance of the IPC offences on 18.10.2023 despite the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
  • Petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application (C.R.R. No. 4495 of 2024) under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that sanction under Section 197 is a condition precedent for prosecuting a public servant for offences committed in official capacity.
  • CBI argued that sanction is not required for IPC offences; cited unreported Jharkhand High Court judgment and Supreme Court order.
  • The Court examined the competent authority’s observations, which concluded no criminal intent, conspiracy, or pecuniary benefit by the petitioners.
  • The Court referred to Supreme Court judgment in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P., emphasizing that sanction is mandatory when the alleged act is connected to official duties, irrespective of whether the charge is under the PC Act or IPC.
  • The Court held that the magistrate’s cognizance was a manifest error as sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been expressly declined.

Final Outcome

  • The Criminal Revision Application is allowed; the proceedings (R.C. No. 04/2018, CBI Case No. 1 of 2023) pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Calcutta are quashed.
  • All orders dated 18.10.2023 and any subsequent orders taking cognizance of IPC Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 are set aside insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
  • The case diary, if any, is to be returned to the State’s advocate.
  • Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
  • Parties are directed to act on the server copies of the judgment uploaded on the Court’s website.

Topics: Legal Sanction, Banking Fraud