In a ruling that has the potential of unleashing far-reaching consequences, the Jharkhand High Court has held that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be used as a shield to protect corrupt public servants. While upholding criminal proceedings against former IAS officer Pooja Singhal (IAS:2000:JH), the court ruled that prior sanction is required only when such acts are reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties.
The court gave its ruling, taking cognizance against Singhal.
Singhal had moved the court, saying that criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against her were invalid, as no prior sanction was secured.
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 put it clearly, saying the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not intended to shield corrupt public servants from criminal prosecution.
According to the court ruling, 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 interpretation of Section 197 of the CrPC came after a writ petition was filed by Singhal seeking to quash a cognizance order passed by a Special Judge of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court on July 19, 2022.
The cognizance was taken 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.
A single-judge bench of Justice Ambuj Nath examined whether the alleged offences had a reasonable connection with official duties. The bench seems to have relied on a Supreme Court jurisprudence that draws a clear distinction between official acts and criminal misconduct in the name of official action.
The HC clearly defined the purpose of the Act, saying money laundering and corruption cannot be considered acts done in discharge of official duty; merely being a public servant does not automatically attract Section 197 CrPC; and granting sanction in such cases would defeat the purpose of anti-corruption laws.
Join Us on WhatsApp