9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation in the complaints that the two respondents were not empowered to do the acts they have done. There is a connection between their duties and the acts complained of. The second condition for the applicability of Section 197(1) also stands satisfied, and therefore, in this case, Section 197(1) of CrPC applies to the respondents, assuming that Section 197(1) of CrPC applies to the proceedings under the PMLA. Considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1) - the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. Section 71 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the PMLA notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 65 is a prior section which specifically makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to PMLA, subject to the condition that only those provisions of the CrPC will apply which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. Therefore, when a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poration Ltd. (for short, the Corporation ). His submission is that he was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 197(1) of CrPC, as it cannot be said that while holding the said position, he was not removable from the office save by or with the sanction of the Government. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Others (1981) 3 SCC 431 and Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar and Another (1998) 5 SCC 91 . He submitted that the first respondent was not employed in connection with the affairs of the State Government at the time of the commission of the offence. He submitted that officers of such Corporations are not public servants within the meaning of Section 197(1). He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and others (2007) 1 SCC 1 . He submitted that the issue of the requirement of sanction will have to be decided at the time of the trial. He submitted that the respondents act of money laundering cannot be considered to have been done in the discharge of their official duties. 4. Mrs Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel appearing for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 197(1) must be considered here. The object is to protect the public servants from prosecutions. It ensures that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything they do in the discharge of their duties. This provision is for the protection of honest and sincere officers. However, the protection is not unqualified. They can be prosecuted with a previous sanction from the appropriate government. 7. The expression to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty has been judicially interpreted. A bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2005) 8 SCC 202 , in paragraph no 9, observed thus: 9 .. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. Cognizance has been taken based on the complaints. Therefore, the issue of the absence of sanction will arise at this stage. 9. The second respondent was at the relevant time holding the post of Principal Secretary, I CAD Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is not disputed that even the first respondent was a civil servant but was appointed on deputation as the Corporation's Vice Chairman and Managing Director during the relevant period. It is undisputed that as far as the second respondent is concerned, he was removable from his office by or with the sanction of the Government. 10. As far as the first respondent is concerned, we find from clause 71 (a) of the Memorandum that the power to appoint Directors of the Corporation by nomination is vested in the Government of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Under Clause 81 of the Memorandum, the State Government was empowered to appoint any of the Corporation's Directors to be the Corporation's Managing Director. Thus, the appointment of the first respondent as a Director and subsequently as the Managing Director has been made by the State Government. Sub-clause (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 704 , in paragraphs 5 and 15 held thus: 5. The legislative mandate engrafted in sub-section (1) of Section 197 debarring a court from taking cognizance of an offence except with the previous sanction of the Government concerned in a case where the acts complained of are alleged to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or purporting to be in the discharge of his official duty and such public servant is not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government, touches the jurisdiction of the court itself. It is a prohibition imposed by the statute from taking cognizance. Different tests have been laid down in decided cases to ascertain the scope and meaning of the relevant words occurring in Section 197 of the Code: any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty . The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section 197, unless the act complained of is an offence; the only point for determination is whether it was commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emphasis added) Thus, there is no embargo on considering the plea of absence of sanction, after cognizance is taken by the Special Court of the offences punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. In this case, it is not necessary to postpone the consideration of the issue. 15. We have carefully perused the allegations against the respondents in the complaint. The allegation against the second respondent is of allocating an additional 10 lakh litres of water to India Cement Ltd. Taking the averments made in the complaint against him as it is, the act alleged against him has been committed by him while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. The allegation against the first respondent is of the allotment of land measuring 250 acres to M/s. Indu Tech Zone Private Ltd. Taking the averments made in the complaint as correct, the act alleged against him has been done by him purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. In the case of both respondents, the acts alleged against them are related to the discharge of the duties entrusted to them. It is not even the allegation in the complaints that the two respondents were not empowered to do the acts they have don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the PMLA. Once we hold that in view of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 197(1) will apply to the provisions of the PMLA, Section 71 cannot be invoked to say that the provision of Section 197(1) of CrPC will not apply to the PMLA. A provision of Cr. P.C., made applicable to the PMLA by Section 65, will not be overridden by Section 71. Those provisions of CrPC which apply to the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 will continue to apply to the PMLA, notwithstanding Section 71. If Section 71 is held applicable to such provisions of the CrPC, which apply to the PMLA by virtue of Section 65, such interpretation will render Section 65 otiose. No law can be interpreted in a manner which will render any of its provisions redundant. 19. In this case, the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, has been taken against the respondents accused without obtaining previous sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct. We must clarify that the effect of the impugned judgment is that the orders of the Special Court taking cognizance only as against the accused B.P.Acharya and Adityanath Das stand set aside. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
