Supreme Court Questions Whether Bank Of India Alone Can Face Octroi Prosecution After Officials Get Relief

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether criminal proceedings for alleged octroi violations can continue against Bank of India after the Bombay High Court quashed proceedings against its senior officials while allowing the case against the bank to continue.

The issue arose while the Court was hearing the Bank of India's plea challenging the Bombay High Court's December 8, 2025 judgment. The High Court had quashed proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pune, against the bank's Chairman and Managing Director Ashok Kumar Mishra, Executive Directors B.A. Prabhakar and M. Narendra, and Deputy Zonal Manager Ramchandra Malwade, while permitting prosecution against the bank to continue.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, during the hearing, asked counsel appearing for Pune Municipal Commissioner, “Can a complaint lie only against a bank without impleading any directors?... Can a company alone be prosecuted in the absence of any other Individual ...can a company be prosecuted?”

The matter was directed to be listed next week.

The dispute arose after the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) initiated criminal proceedings against the Bank of India and its senior officials over alleged non-payment of octroi duty on the import of gold bullion and coins into Pune between 2006 and 2009.

PMC alleged that the bank imported gold within municipal limits without paying octroi dues of about ₹14.59 lakh. It filed a complaint under Sections 398 and 401 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act before the JMFC, Pune.

On November 2, 2009, the JMFC issued a process against the bank, its CMD, executive directors, and deputy zonal manager. The officials challenged the proceedings before the Bombay High Court, contending that the complaint contained only vague allegations and did not specify any role attributable to them.

The Bombay High Court quashed proceedings against the officials while allowing the complaint to continue against the bank. It held that the complaint did not contain specific averments attributing any role to the officers sought to be prosecuted.