Seizure Of ₹2 Crore, Gold Bar From Govt Officer's Home Can't Relate To Official Act; Sanction For Prosecution Not Needed: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a public servant's plea booked in a corruption case who had challenged an order taking cognizance of offences under PMLA on the ground that no prior sanction was taken as per Section 218 BNSS.In doing so the court observed that there were over Rs 2 crore cash and a gold bar worth over Rs 60 Lakh seized from the petitioner's residence and the same cannot relate to any act allegedly committed in discharge of the public servant's duty; thus prior sanction for prosecution is not needed. For context, Section 218 BNSS states that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office except through government sanction, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, then no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said:"In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that when a search was made, it was found that a sum of Rs.2,31,15,000/- in cash alongwith one gold bar amounting to Rs.61,00,000/- were found in a bag kept in the almirah of the petitioner's residence and the same was found to be in possession of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid alleged act does not fall within the purview of “an act performed in official discharge of duties”...This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition and the judgments relied by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the instant petition stands rejected". The court was hearing a public servant's plea challenging Special court's order by which cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Section 3/4 of PMLA. It was argued that after filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, cognizance was taken for offences without taking prosecution sanction under Section 218 BNSS.Thus, in absence of sanction to prosecute the petitioner neither the charge-sheet can be filed nor the cognizance can be taken.The ED argued that a huge amount of Rs.2,31,15,000 in cash along with one gold bar amounting to Rs.61,00,000 were found in the almirah and the same was in possession of the petitioner. The Counsel submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner does not fall within the official discharge of duties, hence, under these circumstances, sanction under Section 218 (Prosecution of Judges and public servants) BNSS is not required to be taken for prosecution.It was submitted that on the finding of prima facie case against the petitioner, cognizance has been taken by the learned the trial court and high court's interference is not warranted.The court thus dismissed the petition. Case title: Ved Prakash Yadav v/s Directorate Of EnforcementCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 359S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1927/2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Seizure Of ₹2 Crore, Gold Bar From Govt Officer's Home Can't Relate To Official Act; Sanction For Prosecution Not Needed: Rajasthan High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Seizure Of ₹2 Crore, Gold Bar From Govt Officer's Home Can't Relate To Official Act; Sanction For Prosecution Not Needed: Rajasthan High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers