Prior sanction for official acts under money laundering complaints remains mandatory where allegations are reasonably connected to duty.

Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as applicable to complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act because Section 65 imports the CrPC where there is no inconsistency, and no inconsistency with the sanction requirement was found. The special statute's overriding clause did not displace Section 65, so prior sanction remained necessary before cognizance under Section 44(1)(b). Applying the settled test of reasonable connection, the alleged allotment of land and allocation of water were held referable to official duties, and the respondents were entitled to Section 197(1) protection. Cognizance without prior sanction was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether previous sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required before taking cognizance of complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the respondents; (ii) whether the acts attributed to the respondents were sufficiently connected with the discharge of their official duties so as to attract the protection of Section 197(1).

Issue (i): whether previous sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required before taking cognizance of complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the respondents

Analysis: Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 makes the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable to proceedings under that Act so far as there is no inconsistency. The Court found no provision in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 inconsistent with Section 197(1). Section 71, being an overriding clause, could not nullify the operation of Section 65, because that would render Section 65 redundant. Accordingly, the sanction requirement continued to apply to complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to the complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): whether the acts attributed to the respondents were sufficiently connected with the discharge of their official duties so as to attract the protection of Section 197(1)

Analysis: The Court applied the settled test of reasonable connection between the act complained of and official duty. On the allegations as pleaded, the allotment of land and allocation of water were acts referable to the respondents' official roles. The respondents were found to be public servants removable from office with governmental sanction, and the complaint did not show that the acts were wholly outside the scope of their duties. The protection under Section 197(1) therefore attached.

Conclusion: The alleged acts were held to be connected with official duty and the respondents were entitled to the protection of Section 197(1).

Final Conclusion: The cognizance taken without prior sanction could not be sustained, and the challenge to the High Court's view failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code of Criminal Procedure is made applicable by a special statute subject to inconsistency, a general overriding clause in that statute does not displace the sanction requirement of Section 197(1) unless an express or necessary inconsistency exists; if the alleged acts bear a reasonable connection with official duty, prior sanction remains mandatory.

---