<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Petition challenging cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA dismissed; Section 218 sanction irrelevant as acts not official</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93725</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petition challenging cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA taken against a public servant who was prosecuted without departmental sanction. The Court held that Section 218 of the BNSS prescribes that prior sanction is required to prosecute a public servant not removable except by the Government for offences alleged to have been committed while exercising official functions; however, it concluded the impugned act-cash and a gold bar found in the petitioner&#039;s residential almirah-did not constitute an act performed in official discharge of duties. Notwithstanding the sanction contention, the HC found no merit in the petition and accordingly rejected the challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition challenging cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA dismissed; Section 218 sanction irrelevant as acts not official</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93725</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petition challenging cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA taken against a public servant who was prosecuted without departmental sanction. The Court held that Section 218 of the BNSS prescribes that prior sanction is required to prosecute a public servant not removable except by the Government for offences alleged to have been committed while exercising official functions; however, it concluded the impugned act-cash and a gold bar found in the petitioner&#039;s residential almirah-did not constitute an act performed in official discharge of duties. Notwithstanding the sanction contention, the HC found no merit in the petition and accordingly rejected the challenge.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>