Prior Prosecution Sanction Not Mandatory for Personal Illegal Acts of Public Servants: Jharkhand High Court

Introduction

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of protection available to public servants, the Jharkhand High Court has held that prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not mandatory where the alleged acts of a public servant are personal, illegal, and unconnected with official duty.
The judgment came while dismissing a petition filed by IAS officer Pooja Singhal, who had challenged the cognisance taken against her in a money laundering case.


Background of the Case

The Petitioner

  • Pooja Singhal, a 2000-batch IAS officer, currently serving as Secretary (Information & Technology), Jharkhand.

  • Formerly served as Deputy Commissioner, Khunti district.

Allegations

  • The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged large-scale defalcation of government funds under MNREGA projects.

  • Audit reports suggested embezzlement of ₹18.06 crore during the period February 2009 to July 2010, when Singhal was the principal authority sanctioning development funds.

  • During ED raids, ₹19.76 crore in cash was allegedly recovered from premises linked to Singhal and her associates.


Procedural History

  • ED registered ECIR Case No. 03 of 2018 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

  • Singhal was arrested on May 11, 2022.

  • The Special PMLA Court, Ranchi, took cognisance of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA on July 19, 2022.

  • She was granted bail on December 7, 2024, and her suspension was later revoked by the state government.


Legal Issue Before the High Court

Core Question

Whether prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is mandatory before taking cognisance against a public servant accused of money laundering for acts allegedly committed during service.


Arguments by the Petitioner

  • Singhal contended that she was a public servant, and therefore, Section 197(1) CrPC mandated prior sanction before any court could take cognisance.

  • She argued that the cognisance order was void ab initio, as it was passed without complying with this statutory safeguard.

  • It was submitted that the acts in question occurred while she was discharging official functions, attracting protection under Section 197.


Arguments by the Directorate of Enforcement

  • The ED argued that Section 197 CrPC is not an absolute shield.

  • Protection applies only when the alleged acts are reasonably connected with official duties, not when official position is used as a cloak for corruption.

  • Money laundering and misappropriation of public funds are personal illegal acts, not acts done in discharge of official duty.


Jharkhand High Court’s Ruling

No Blanket Protection for Public Servants

Justice Ambuj Nath categorically held:

“Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only for acts reasonably connected to official duty, not personal illegal acts even if done by public servants. Sanction is not meant for shielding corrupt officials.”


On the Timing of Sanction

The Court further clarified:

  • Even where sanction is required, it can be obtained at any stage before the pronouncement of judgment.

  • Absence of sanction at the stage of taking cognisance does not vitiate proceedings.

  • Whether sanction is ultimately required depends on evidence led during trial.

The Court concluded that the Special PMLA Court’s cognisance order was legally valid, even without prior sanction.


Statutory Framework Involved

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 197(1): Requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty.

2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

  • Section 218: Corresponding provision replacing Section 197 CrPC.

3. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

  • Section 3: Defines offence of money laundering.

  • Section 4: Prescribes punishment.


Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 14 – Equality before law; no special privilege for corrupt acts.

  • Article 21 – Due process of law; prosecution must be fair but effective.

  • Article 311 – Protection of civil servants, limited to service matters, not criminal misconduct.


Key Judicial Precedents Relied Upon (Implied Principles)

While not exhaustively listed in the judgment, the ruling aligns with established Supreme Court jurisprudence, including:

  • Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) – Sanction not required for acts of corruption.

  • State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao (1993) – Illegal acts cannot be protected as official duty.

  • Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) – Reasonable nexus with official duty is the test.

  • CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) – Economic offences by officials fall outside Section 197 protection.


Significance of the Judgment

  • Reinforces that public office cannot be used as a shield for corruption.

  • Strengthens enforcement under PMLA and anti-corruption laws.

  • Prevents procedural delays caused by premature sanction objections.

  • Aligns criminal law with the principle of accountability in public administration.


Conclusion

The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling draws a clear legal boundary:
Protection under Section 197 CrPC is not a license for illegality.
Public servants accused of personal criminal acts, including money laundering, cannot stall prosecution by invoking sanction as a preliminary defence.

This judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation that anti-corruption laws prevail over procedural technicalities, ensuring that accountability remains central to governance.

Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Equality Before Law

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

India vs Pressure: Why New Delhi Is Not Backing Down on Russian Oil Amid Global Scrutiny