https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768403 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768403 Money Laundering - challenge to cognizance taken by the Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur, against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - offence is committed by a public servant or not - petitioner's alleged act reasonably connect with the discharge of official duty or not. Whether the offence is committed by a public servant? - HELD THAT:- The term public servant has been defined in Section 2 (28) of the Bharitya Nyay Sanhita, and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was working as Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry in the State of Chhattisgarh and he is in the service of Central Government, therefore, he is public servant as defined under Section 2 (28) of the BNS. Whether petitioner's alleged act reasonably connect with the discharge of official duty? - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Section 197 Cr.P.C. shows that the essential conditions must be satisfied for the appreciation of Section 197 Cr.P.C. i.e.; (1) Offence mention therein must be committed by a public servant.; (2) The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty - there must be connection between official duty with the alleged offence. Section 197 Cr.P.C. restrict its scope of operation to only those acts or actions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. Since Respondent/ ED has alleged that the Petitioner, who was the Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry at the time of commission of the alleged offences. The alleged offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties as Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry. Therefore, there is official nexus in doing the said act. The ED knows very well that in this case prosecution sanction is mandatory to prosecute the petitioner. It is crystal clear that on the date of taking cognizance there was no prosecution sanction obtained by the ED and without posecution sanction learned Special Judge PMLA, Raipur has taken cognizance on 05.10.2024 against the petitioner which is illegal and bad in law and it deserves to be set aside. The order dated 05/10/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA) Raipur whereby the cognizance has been taken in Prosecution Complaint dated 19/06/2024 sine qua to the petitioner is set aside. However, the respondent/ ED is granted liberty to take recourse to the concerned Trial Court for taking cognizance afresh against the petitioner. And, the learned Trial Court is directed to examine the sanction order produced by the respondent/ED before taking cognizance. Conclusion - The petitioner is a public servant whose alleged acts are connected with his official duties, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution. The cognizance taken without such sanction is set aside, with liberty granted to the ED to seek fresh cognizance upon obtaining the required sanction. The instant criminal revision stands allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530