2025 (5) TMI 2229 - HC - Money Laundering

Cognizance of offences by Central government public servant required prior sanction u/s197 Cr.P.C.; earlier cognizance set aside, bail granted

Whether prior prosecution sanction was required for cognizance: Held that as the accused is a Central Government public servant, cognizance of offences ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail - right to speedy trial - applicant has already suffered long incarceration of pretrial custody and the trial has not yet commenced - prosecution sanction for a public servant employed under the Central Government - cognizance of an offence alleged to be committed by the individual while acting in their official duties without the prior sanction of the appropriate government - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the applicant is a public servant employed under the Central Government and therefore under Section 197 Cr.P.C. it requires prior prosecution sanction before a court can take cognizance of an offense committed by such individuals, particularly when the offense is alleged to have been committed while they were acting in their official capacity. A Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant before this Court under Section 438 read with Section 422 of the BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur by the which cognizance has been taken against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 409, 120-B IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the order of prosecution sanction and had subsequently obtained the sanction from the law and legislative department, CG. However, since the petitioner is a Central Government employee, the sanction ought to have been obtained from the parent department for the offence relation to PC Act ie. from the Director, Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, regarding prosecution sanction against the applicant. The court can not take cognizance of an offence alleged to be committed by the individual while acting in their official duties without the prior sanction of the appropriate government ie. from the parent department from where he has been sent on deputation. There is no prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial court has firstly taken cognizance by the order dated 01.02.2025 in the FIR No. 01/2024 against the applicant which has been challenged before this Court by way of Cr. Rev. No. 325/2025 and this Court has observed that without prosecution sanction order, the concerned trial court has taken cognizance therefore this Court has set aside the order taking cognizance by the trial court. The EOW/ACB has obtained prosecution sanction order on 5th February 2025 from the Law and Legislative Department, Chhattisgarh therefore ACB has filed the prosecution sanction before the learned trial court and the learned trial court has taken further cognizance on 01.02.2025. However, since the petitioner is a Central Government employee, therefore the respondent has already sent a letter to the Director, Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi regarding prosecution sanction against the present petitioner, but has not yet received the prosecution sanction. The Apex Court in the matter of Arun Pati Tripathi Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2025 (2) TMI 852 - SC ORDER], has observed that the custody of the appellant cannot be continued. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant in custody, charge sheet has already been filed and specifically the prosecution sanction has not been obtained by the respondent from the Central Government, therefore, custody of the applicant cannot be continued and this court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be granted regular bail. The bail application is allowed subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 01/2024 in view of long pre-trial incarceration, filing of charge-sheet and absence of prosecution sanction from the appropriate central authority for offences alleged under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.Analysis: The Court examined the impact of prolonged custody and the principle of speedy trial under Article 21, the legal effect of filing of the charge-sheet, the requirement of prior prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for a central government employee, and the appellate and Supreme Court precedents recognising bail where custody is prolonged or necessary sanction is not obtained. The Court noted that investigation as regards the applicant stands completed and charge-sheet has been filed, that no prosecution sanction from the parent (central) department had been received authorising prosecution under the PC Act, that earlier cognizance without appropriate sanction was set aside, and that continued custody in absence of central prosecution sanction and after substantial pre-trial detention would be impermissible subject to protective conditions. The Court balanced considerations of risk of flight, tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses against the factual matrix and absence of central sanction, and directed stringent bail conditions to secure attendance and cooperation with trial.Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to regular bail; the bail application is allowed and the trial court is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on conditions including surrender of passport, undertaking to attend and cooperate with the trial, and standard condition permitting respondent to seek cancellation on breach of conditions.