Ranchi: In a significant ruling reinforcing accountability in public administration, the Jharkhand High Court has held that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be used as a protective shield for acts of corruption, especially when such acts are not reasonably connected to official duties.
The Court upheld the order taking cognizance against former IAS officer Pooja Singhal, rejecting her plea that criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were invalid due to the absence of prior sanction.
What is Section 197 CrPC Used in Pooja Singhal PMLA Case
Clarifying the scope of Section 197 CrPC, the High Court ruled that sanction is required only when the alleged offence is directly and reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties.
The Court categorically observed that:
“The protection under Section 197 CrPC is not intended to shield corrupt public servants from criminal prosecution.”
Acts that are personal, illegal, or motivated by corruption, even if committed during the tenure of public office, do not attract the protection of prior sanction, the Court emphasized.
Background of the Pooja Singhal PMLA Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Pooja Singhal seeking to quash a cognizance order dated July 19, 2022, passed by a Special Judge in Ranchi under the PMLA.
The cognizance was taken pursuant to ECIR No. 03 of 2018, in which Singhal was accused of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Singhal contended that since the alleged acts occurred while she was serving as a public servant, prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory, and in its absence, the proceedings were legally unsustainable.
Court’s Analysis: No Nexus With Official Duty
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ambuj Nath examined whether the alleged offences had a reasonable nexus with official functions.
The Court held that:
- Merely being a public servant at the time of commission of an offence does not automatically attract Section 197 CrPC
- Money laundering and corruption cannot be considered acts done in discharge of official duty
- Granting sanction in such cases would defeat the object of anti-corruption laws
The Bench relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence which draws a clear distinction between official acts and criminal misconduct masquerading as official action.
Cognizance Order Upheld
Rejecting the plea for quashing, the High Court upheld the Special Judge’s cognizance order, ruling that:
- The absence of sanction does not vitiate proceedings under PMLA
- The alleged offences were independent criminal acts
- Section 197 CrPC cannot be invoked to stall prosecution in corruption cases
- The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Read also: IAS Officer Pooja Singhal Gets Relief as Court Rejects ED’s Plea
