Court rules that sanction under CrPC Section 197 is not required for acts unrelated to official duties, dismissing Pooja Singhal's plea in money laundering case.
In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Ambuj Nath, has dismissed the writ petition filed by Pooja Singhal, challenging the cognizance order taken by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court upheld the cognizance of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, asserting that sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is unnecessary for acts not reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties.
Pooja Singhal, a former Deputy Commissioner of Khunti, was accused by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) of embezzling state funds amounting to crores, in collusion with other accused, during her tenure from February 2009 to July 2010. The case was based on audit reports and investigations revealing significant defalcation of government money in several projects. During raids, cash and incriminating documents were recovered, and Singhal was unable to provide a legal source for her wealth, leading to her arrest in May 2022.
Singhal contended that as a public servant, the cognizance order was invalid without the mandatory sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC, which protects public officials from prosecution for acts performed in their official capacity. Her counsel argued that the lack of sanction rendered the cognizance order illegal.
However, the court clarified that Section 197 CrPC applies only to acts reasonably connected to official duties and not to personal illegal acts, even if committed by public servants. Justice Nath emphasized that the protection is not meant to shield corrupt officials and is applicable only when the alleged acts are directly related to official duties. The court found that Singhal's actions, involving the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, were not part of her official duties and thus did not require prior sanction.
The court further noted that the issue of sanction can be addressed at any stage during the trial, indicating that the prosecution could seek sanction before the judgment if necessary. The judgment aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, particularly in the case of Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, where the applicability of CrPC provisions to PMLA cases was discussed.
The dismissal of Singhal's writ petition allows the trial to proceed, with the court reinforcing the principle that public servants cannot claim protection under Section 197 for acts unrelated to their official duties. This decision underscores the judiciary's stance against corruption and the misuse of official positions for personal gain.
Bottom Line:
Sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required only for acts reasonably connected to official duty, not personal illegal acts, even if committed by public servants.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 3 and 4, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 197.
