Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/s-197-crpc-applies-to-pmla-supreme-court-holds-prior-sanction-mandatory-to-prosecute-public-servants-for-money-laundering-offence-274362

Context:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must obtain prior sanction before prosecuting public servants on money laundering charges.

What is the "prior sanction" provision under the CrPC?

The prior sanction provision is outlined in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requires the government to grant permission before prosecuting public servants for acts committed while performing official duties. 

This provision shields public employees from unnecessary legal action, except in cases of serious crimes such as sexual harassment or human trafficking.

Public servants can only be prosecuted after receiving prior sanction unless the crime is committed outside of their official duties.

Recent Supreme Court verdict regarding prior sanction for public servants under PMLA

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 197(1) of the CrPC requires prior sanction before prosecuting public servants, which also applies to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 

The Court noted that, while the PMLA does not explicitly mention prior sanction, however its provisions are aligned with the CrPC, and therefore prior sanction is necessary.

Why did the Supreme Court mandate prior sanction in PMLA cases involving public servants?

The Supreme Court's decision was based on the fact that the accused in the Bibhu Prasad Acharya case were public employees whose alleged criminal acts were related to their official duties. 

The Court pointed out Section 65 of the PMLA, which makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to all proceedings under the PMLA unless they conflict with the latter's provisions. This connection supported the need for prior sanction.

When an accused public servant can raise the issue of lack of prior sanction?

An accused public servant may raise the issue of a lack of prior sanction at any stage of the trial, including after conviction. 

In P K Pradhan v/s State of Sikkim (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that the lack of prior sanction could be raised at any point during the trial or after conviction. The accused must prove that the alleged offence occurred while performing their official duties.

How does the Supreme Court ruling affect ongoing trials?

The ruling requires that trials involving public servants charged with money laundering under the PMLA obtain prior government sanction before proceeding with prosecution. This has prompted public officials, including Arvind Kejriwal and P. Chidambaram, to challenge ongoing trials on the grounds that prior sanction was not obtained.

What impact will the requirement of prior sanction have on ED cases against public servants?

The requirement for prior sanction may have an impact on the progress of ED cases against public servants. If prior sanction is not obtained, the trial court may be unable to take cognizance of the charges and any subsequent conviction may be challenged based on the lack of prior sanction.

This provision may cause delays in prosecutions and appeals, potentially leading to cases being dismissed or convictions overturned.

Must Read Articles: 

PROSECUTION SANCTION AGAINST CM

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING LAW

PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT

PMLA

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

ED STATES TUSSLE

Source: 

Indian Express