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
Post a Comment