Prior sanction for public servants under CrPC applies only to acts linked with official duty; personal corruption is excluded.

Prior sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC is required only where the alleged offence has a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty. Section 65 of the PMLA attracts the CrPC unless inconsistent, so the sanction principle can apply in PMLA proceedings in principle. On the facts, alleged accumulation of illicit money and siphoning of State funds was treated as personal illegal conduct, not an act reasonably connected with official duty, and the absence of prior sanction did not vitiate cognizance. The sanction issue could also be examined at the trial stage. The challenge to the cognizance order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was mandatory before the Special Court could take cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against a public servant, and whether absence of such sanction vitiated the cognizance order.

Analysis: The governing test is whether the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty. Section 197 protects public servants only for acts done while acting or purporting to act in the course of official duty, and the protection does not extend to wholly unconnected personal illegal acts. Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applies the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to PMLA proceedings unless inconsistent, and the Court treated the sanction requirement as applicable in principle. On the facts, however, the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten money and siphoning of State funds was held to be personal illegal conduct and not an act reasonably connected with official duty. The issue of sanction could also be examined at the trial stage, and the absence of prior sanction did not, on the facts, invalidate the cognizance order.

Conclusion: Prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not held to be a ground to quash the cognizance order in this case, and the challenge to cognizance failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The protection under Section 197(1) applies only where the alleged offence has a reasonable nexus with official duty; it does not extend to personal corrupt acts such as siphoning public funds, even when committed by a public servant.

---