New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Wednesday, N ov, 6, held that Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that mandates prior sanction from the government to take cognizance of an offence against public servants will apply to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) too. A bench of Justices A S Oka and Augustine George Masih said this while upholding the Telangana High Court decision, setting aside a trial court order taking cognizance of the complaint against IAS officers Bibhu Prasad Acharya and Adityanath Das, facing money laundering charges, along with former Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy.
Section 197 (1) says, “When any person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.”
The ED, which filed the appeal challenging the HC order, contended that Acharya 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.
The ED also contended that in view of Section 71 of the PMLA, its provisions have an overriding effect over the provisions of the other statutes, including the CrPC.
But the court did not agree, holding that the first condition, as required under Section 197(1), is satisfied in the case of both the respondents as they are civil servants. Also, the acts alleged against them are related to the discharge of the duties entrusted to them and thus the second condition for the applicability of Section 197(1) also stands satisfied.
The ruling pointed out that Section 65 of PMLA makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to all proceedings under the PMLA, provided the same are not inconsistent with the PMLA provisions and the words ‘all other proceedings’ include a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA.
“We have carefully perused the provisions of the PMLA. We do not find that there is any provision therein which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC. 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). No such provision has been pointed out to us. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA,” the SC ruled.
It added that “when a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 71 (1) cannot override the provision of CrPC which applies 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”.
According to ED, Acharya, in conspiracy and connivance with Reddy, allotted 250 acres of land for the SEZ project to Indu Techzone Private Ltd by violating the norms. It also accused him of indirect involvement in money laundering.
The allegation against Das, who was at the relevant time Principal Secretary, I & CAD Department of the state government, is that in conspiracy with Reddy, he extended favours to India Cement Limited by allotting an additional 10 lakh litres of water from River Kagna by violating the norms. Upholding the HC order, the SC said the cognizance of the PMLA offences against, has been taken without obtaining previous sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC.