2026 (4) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring that the Charge Sheet filed by the Respondent No. 3 pending as S.C. No. 109 of 2015 in ECIR No. 07/HZO/2012 (Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad) before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad, as illegal, contrary to law, for want of sanction by the Government and thus vitiated and consequentially to set it aside/quash and pass such other order/s as the Hon'ble Court deems necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of the case." 2. I have heard Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the Directorate of Enforcement. 3.1. Factual Backgrou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 3 of the PMLA. Accordingly charges under the PMLA were framed on 13.03.2025. 3.4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that, as a public servant who was not removable from service without the sanction of the Government of India, and as the alleged acts were connected with the discharge of official duties, the continuation of proceedings without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is legally impermissible. 4. Petitioner's pleading: Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a mandatory precondition for a court to take cognizance of offences alleged against a public servant when such acts are reasonably....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uisition of assets worth approximately Rs.3 crores through layered transactions, attracting provisions of the PMLA. Although the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court, a Special Leave Petition against the acquittal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.3. It is also pointed out that a co-accused (the petitioner's wife) had earlier challenged the same complaint in Crl.P. No. 6271 of 2024, which was dismissed on merits. The respondents contend that protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is confined strictly to acts done in discharge of official duties and requires a reasonable nexus between the act and such duty. It is argued that offences such as bribery, possession of disproportionate assets, and money laundering are inherent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (supra) the Supreme Court clarified that where official status merely furnishes the occasion or opportunity for the commission of an offence, sanction is not required. 10.2. Similarly, in Shambhoo Nath Misra, (supra) it was held that offences such as misappropriation and fabrication of records cannot be treated as acts done in discharge of official duties. 10.3. In Bibhu Prasad Acharya, (supra) the Supreme Court reiterated that sanction is necessary only where the act is directly and reasonably connected with official functions. Acts ex facie beyond the scope of official duty do not attract such protection. 10.4. Further, in Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka, (supra) it was emphasized that Section 19....