Chattisgarh High Court
Arun Pati Tripathi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:45816
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 283 of 2025
1 - Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Lt. Sh. Prakash Pati Tripathi Aged About 55 Years R/o
48, House No. 1a, Street- Spa, Sector-9, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh- 490009
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, EOW / ACB District- Raipur, C.G.
----Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Shishir Prakash, along with Mr. Aditya
Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
09/09/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the revision
petition.
2. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the application I.A. No.
03/2025.
3. It is admitted fact the concerned trial Court has took cognizance on
01.07.2024, however, on 14.02.2025, the concerned DSP has
presented the original copy of the prosecution sanction which has been
accepted by the concerned Special Judge. After taking cognizance, the
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.09.11
17:48:20
+0530
trial has yet not commenced and charge has not been levelled. The
applicant was in jail. As such, this Court is inclined to allow the I.A. No.
03/2025 as reasons mentioned in the application.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2025 is allowed. The delay of 90 days in filing
criminal revision is condoned.
5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur (C.G.), in case No. 01/2024,
arising out of FIR No. 04/2024 dt. 17.01.2024 and all consequential
orders and proceedings, whereby the Ld. Special Judge has fixed the
case for arguments on charge, taking cognizance of the offences and
without the necessary sanction under Section 19 PC Act or under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant draw the attention to this Court on the
ground that the FIR has been lodged on 17.01.2024 and charge-sheet
has been filed on 29.06.2024. On 01.07.2024, the learned trial Court
took cognizance against the applicant, therefore the matter was fixed
on 27.07.2024 for argument on charge. After taking cognizance, on
14.02.2025, the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police presented
an application before the concerned Court for taking the copies of the
orders of prosecution sanction and learned concerned Court has
accepted the application of prosecution sanction.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:-
(a) at the time of passing the order on 01.07.2024 where cognizance of
the offence was taken, no sanction u/s 197(1) CrPC or u/s 218(1)
BNSS was obtained by the Respondent for prosecution of the
Petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner was a Public Servant at
the time of the commission of the alleged offence and despite the
mandatory requirement for obtaining such a sanction in terms of
Section 197(1) CrPC. He would next contend that even as on date, no
sanction u/s 218 BNSS has been obtained by the Respondent for
prosecution of the Petitioner. He would next contend that Section
218(1) BNSS having been obtained by the Respondent for prosecution
of the Petitioner herein, despite the fact that the Petitioner was a public
servant at the time the alleged commission of the alleged offence.
(b) He would next contend that a sanction from the concerned
government, as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C. or Section 218
BNSS, is a necessary precondition for a Court to take cognizance of
any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant.
Without such sanction from the concerned government, the competent
Court does not have the jurisdiction to take further proceedings in the
matter, including taking cognizance of the alleged offences. He would
next contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in the
case of Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3181 and declared the law that the Sanction under
Section 197(1), CrPC for prosecution of inter alia a Public Servant must
have been obtained prior to taking cognizance of the offence of PC Act
and IPC as well.
(c) He would also contend that by virtue of the above position of law as
settled and clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bibhu Prasad
Acharya (supra), it is therefore abundantly clear that the provisions of
Section 197(1), CrPC are applicable to a Complaint u/s 44 of the
PMLA. Thus, the previous Sanction u/s 197(1) CrPC is a pre- requisite
for prosecution of a Public Servant, i.e., the Petitioner herein in the
Subject Case and cognizance cannot be taken in the absence thereof.
Thus, the protection under Section 197(1), CrPC extends to the
Petitioner and the Ld. Special Judge erred in taking cognizance as
against the Petitioner without the Respondent having obtained previous
sanction u/s 197(1), CrPC.
(d) It is settled law that the question of sanction u/s 197(1), CrPC can
be raised at any time after the cognizance, whether that be immediately
after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion
of trial and after conviction as well. He placed his reliance in the law
laid dowy by the Supreme Court in the matters of Prakash Singh
Badal & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 1; P.K.
Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704; Bibhu Prasad
Acharya, (supra). Hence, the impugned order taking cognizance of
the offence of money laundering u/s 3 r/w 4 PMLA, as alleged in the
Prosecution Complaint dated 28.06.2024 without prosecution sanction
taking cognizance by the special judge is per se illegal, therefore, the
same may be set aside with respect to the petitioner.
8. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in the matter of
Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed in
Criminal Appeal No.2749 of 2025 on 09.03.2025, in which it is held
that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS puts an
embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that
no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without
giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that:-
(A). In the instant case the FIR against the applicant was
lodged on 17.01.2024 before the Special PMLA Court and
cognizance was taken on 01.07.2024 by the learned trial
Court.
(B). He would next contend that at the time of taking
cognizance by the learned trial Court there was no
requirement for taking prosecution sanction under Section
197 (1) of Cr.P.C. He placed his reliance in the law laid down
by this Court in the matter of Vinod Maleshwar Vs. The
Enforcement Directorate, Raipur {CRR No.816 of 2018,
decided on 17/06/2022} wherein it has been laid down that
if the applicants are made accused in money laundering
case, there is no illegality and also there is no any bar under
any law for their impleadment in money laundering case.
(C) In view of the above submissions in the revision as
framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and thus
the same deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner is
holding a public post and as per the circular issued by the
State Government, as well as, as per the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court
the Law and Legislative Department, Government of
Chhattisgarh is competent to accord sanction for prosecution
in respect to the case of the petitioner and thus there is
neither any illegality or ambiguity in the same.
(D) It is respectfully submitted by the respondents that prior
to preparation and filing of the charge sheet the EOW/ACB
had sought for prosecution sanction from the competent
authority as per the provisions of section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further as per section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charge sheet has
been presented on 01/07/2024 and later on the prosecution
sanction has been received from the competent authority on
01/01/2025 from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department,
Government of Chhattisgarh and on 23/12/2024 from the
Government of India, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications (Vigilance-I Section)
New Delhi and the same were duly filed before the Learned
Special Judge on 14/02/2025 and at present the matter is
fixed for arguments on charge and it is thus appropriate for
the petitioner to argue the matter before the Learned Special
Judge on charge and thus the instant revision as framed and
filed is not maintainable and therefore the same deserves. to
be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
11. The questions fall for consideration before this Court are (i) whether the
offence is committed by a public servant?; (ii) whether petitioner's
alleged act reasonably connect with the discharge of official duty?
12. The term public servant has been defined in Section 2 (28) of the
Bhartiya Nyay Sanihta and it is an admitted fact that the applicant was
holding a public post of Special Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh
Department of Excise and Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State
Marketing Corporation Limited, therefore, he is public servant as
defined under Section 2 (28) of the BNS.
13. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow:-
197 Prosecution of Judges and public
servants.-(1) 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 1[save as
otherwise provided in the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013
(a) in the case of a person who is employed
or, as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed,
in connection with the affairs of the Union, of
the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed
or, as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed,
in connection with the affairs of a State, of
the State Government:
14. A bare perusal of Section 197 Cr.P.C. shows that the essential
conditions must be satisfied for the appreciation of Section 197 Cr.P.C.
i.e.; (1) Offence mention therein must be committed by a public servant.;
(2) The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the
public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official
duty.
15. Therefore, from the above reading, it is crystal clear there must be
connection between official duty with the alleged offence. Section 197
Cr.P.C. restrict its scope of operation to only those acts or actions which
are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty.
16. Therefore, in view of the well settled principles of law and for the fact
that since Respondent has alleged that the the appointment of the
petitioner to the post of MD, CSMCL was done at the behest of Anwar
Dhebar, who got it approved from the State Government by the
influence of Anil Tuteja. He was appointed as the Joint Secretary of
Excise Department in February 2019 and was made the MD of
Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd. On 08.05.2019 and it
has also been alleged that the petitioner used to act at the behest of the
syndicate. The act of increasing the landing cost of Part- A liquor, giving
tenders to manpower, suppliers, hologram suppliers, awarding of
tenders to compliant partners, procurement from distillers, introduction
of the concept of FL- 10 A licences etc. all were executed by him at the
direction of alleged liquor syndicate which is evident as per the
allegations levelled by the Respondent in the FIR dated 17.01.2024, the
alleged offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his offical duties as MD, CSMCL,
therefore, there is official nexus in doing the said act..
17. It is an admitted fact that the present FIR has been lodged on
17.01.2024 and after filing of charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge
took cognizance and has fixed the case for arguments on charge on
01.07.2024 against the present applicant without giving opportunity of
hearing before taking cognizance and thereafter on 14.02.2025 the
concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police had appeared and
presented the original copy of the prosecution sanction before the
concerned court, therefore in the light of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kushal Kumar Agrawal, the order
dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Raipur
whereby the cognizance has been taken in Case No. 01/2024 arising
out of FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 with respect to the petitioner
is set aside only on the ground of non compliance with the provision of
Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 218 of B.N.S.S. 2023) and
proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
18. Needless to say that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the
case. This Court is directed to the applicant/revisioner and the
respondent-to appear before the Special Court on 18.09.2025 (this date
is given with the consent of learned counsel for the parties), so that the
learned Special Judge can be given an opportunity of being heard in
terms of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS. This
Court makes it clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Special
Court to the applicant/revisioner.
19. In the result, the instant criminal revision stands allowed to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
