Prior Criminal Sanction Not For Shielding Corruption: Jharkhand HC Upholds Cognizance Against Ex-IAS Officer Pooja Singhal
Rushil Batra
30 Dec 2025 10:52 AM IST
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to acts reasonably connected with the discharge of official duties, and not to personal or illegal acts merely because they are committed by a public servant. The Court clarified that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not intended to shield corrupt officials from criminal prosecution.
A Single Judge Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Ambuj Nath was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 19 July 2022 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Ranchi, in ECIR Case No. 03 of 2018. By the impugned order, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The petitioner contended that the cognizance order was passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It was submitted that the petitioner was admittedly a public servant and, therefore, the statutory safeguard of sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC was required before taking cognizance. The petitioner argued that in the absence of such sanction, the cognizance order was bad in law.
Opposing the plea, the Enforcement Directorate submitted that defalcation of a huge amount of government funds running into crores had been revealed against the named accused persons, as reflected in the audit report. It was submitted that the petitioner, while officiating as Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, had defalcated government money in several development projects. According to the audit findings, defalcation to the tune of ₹18.06 crore was committed during the period from 16 February 2009 to 19 July 2010, when the petitioner was the principal authority for sanctioning funds for various development projects, allegedly in connivance with the engineers who are also named accused persons.
The Court held that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affords protection to public servants employed under the Central or State Government against vexatious criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of official duties. Relying on settled judicial precedent, the Court observed that such protection may extend even to acts in excess of official duty, provided there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the performance of official functions.
However, the Court clarified that accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by siphoning State funds cannot be regarded as an act connected with official duty and therefore does not attract the protection under Section 197 CrPC. Based on the facts of the present case, the Court noted:
“8. From the facts of the present case, it can be said that the petitioner Pooja Singhal had sanctioned funds for different development projects which she was not authorized to do so and in turn, she has accumulated ill-gotten money. Prima facie, as per the case of the Respondents, she has not been able to account for the money which has been recovered or attributed to have been recovered from her or her associates. Sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only for the acts reasonably connected to official duty, not personal illegal acts even if done by the public servants. Sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not for shielding corrupt officials.”
Thus, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the order taking cognizance and dismissed the writ petition.
Title: Pooja Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: W.P. (Cr.) No. 1043 of 2024
Appearance: M/s Indrajit Sinha, Sneh Singh, Akhouri Awinash Kumar, and Ashwini Priya appeared for the Petitioner. M/s Zoheb Hossain, Amit Kumar Das, Sourav Kumar, Varun Girdhar, and Pranjal Tripathi appeared for the Respondent.