Mr. Vanimisetty Gopala Reddy vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 121 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr. Vanimisetty Gopala Reddy vs Union Of India on 30 March, 2026

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                              AT HYDERABAD

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                     WRIT PETITION No. 6055 OF 2025

                              DATE: 30.03.2026

Between :

               Mr. Vanimisetty Gopala Reddy

                                                      ... Petitioner
                                      AND

               Union of India, Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi,
               Represented by its Secretary, and two others.

                                                      ... Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:

"...to grant an or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Charge Sheet filed by the Respondent No. 3 pending as S.C. No. 109 of 2015 in ECIR No. 07/HZO/2012 (Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad) before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad, as illegal, contrary to law, for want of sanction by the Government and thus vitiated and consequentially to set it aside/quash and pass such other order/s as the Hon'ble Court deems necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of the case."

NTR,J

2. I have heard Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior

Standing Counsel representing the Directorate of Enforcement.

3.1. Factual Background: The petitioner, a retired Senior Divisional

Engineer (West) in the South Central Railway, has been arrayed as an

accused in proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI). The CBI registered a First Information Report on 25.06.2010

alleging that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification of

Rs.10,000/- and was in possession of assets disproportionate to his

known sources of income. These acts were alleged to constitute offences

punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.2. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the

petitioner was tried and convicted by the competent trial court. However,

in Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2014, the High Court set aside the

conviction and acquitted the petitioner of all charges. However against the

order of acquittal, a Special Leave Petition is filed and pending before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3.3. How so ever, on the basis of the same predicate offence under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, which qualifies as a "scheduled offence"

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the

NTR,J

Directorate of Enforcement initiated proceedings. A complaint was filed in

S.C. No. 109 of 2015 alleging that the petitioner, along with his family

members, had acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of

income and projected such proceeds as untainted property, thereby

committing the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the

PMLA. Accordingly charges under the PMLA were framed on 13.03.2025.

3.4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that, as

a public servant who was not removable from service without the sanction

of the Government of India, and as the alleged acts were connected with

the discharge of official duties, the continuation of proceedings without

prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Cr.P.C.) is legally impermissible.

4. Petitioner's pleading: Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded

that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a mandatory precondition

for a court to take cognizance of offences alleged against a public servant

when such acts are reasonably connected with the discharge of official

duties.

5.1. Reliance is placed on P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (2001) 6

SCC 704, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although

investigation may proceed, cognizance cannot be taken without prior

sanction if the acts complained of are integrally connected with official

NTR,J

duties. It is further submitted that the issue of sanction can be raised at

any stage, even post-conviction, and absence thereof may vitiate the

proceedings.

5.2. Further by citing the authorities in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma

(2021) 5 SCC 524, and Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad

Acharya (2024 INSC 843), emphasized that sanction serves as a

safeguard against frivolous prosecution and protects public servants

acting bona fide in discharge of official functions. It is thus argued that the

continuation of proceedings in S.C. No. 109 of 2015, in the absence of

mandatory sanction, is vitiated in law and liable to be quashed.

6.1. Respondents pleading: Learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents submits that the petitioner has confined his challenge solely

to the issue of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is further contended

that charges under the PMLA have already been framed, and the

proceedings have reached an advanced stage.

6.2. The respondents trace the genesis of the case to the CBI trap

dated 25.06.2010 involving bribery and disproportionate assets. It is

submitted that the Enforcement Directorate's investigation revealed

acquisition of assets worth approximately Rs.3 crores through layered

transactions, attracting provisions of the PMLA. Although the petitioner

NTR,J

was acquitted by the High Court, a Special Leave Petition against the

acquittal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6.3. It is also pointed out that a co-accused (the petitioner's wife) had

earlier challenged the same complaint in Crl.P. No. 6271 of 2024, which

was dismissed on merits. The respondents contend that protection under

Section 197 Cr.P.C. is confined strictly to acts done in discharge of official

duties and requires a reasonable nexus between the act and such duty. It

is argued that offences such as bribery, possession of disproportionate

assets, and money laundering are inherently criminal acts having no

nexus with official functions. While official position may afford an

opportunity to commit such acts, it does not bring them within the

protective ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

6.4. Reliance is placed on, Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of Uttar

Pradesh (1997) 5 SCC 326, P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (supra),

Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya (supra),

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 42) and Vijay Kumar Ghai

v. State of West Bengal (2022) 1 SCR 884. And pleaded that these

authorities consistently hold that acts such as corruption,

misappropriation, and fabrication of records fall outside the scope of

official duty, and sanction is not required where official status merely

provides an opportunity to commit the offence. It is further submitted that

NTR,J

the issue of sanction can be examined during trial, and therefore, the

present writ petition is premature.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both

sides and perused the material on record.

8. The principal question that arises for consideration is, whether the

absence of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. vitiates the

continuation of proceedings under the PMLA at the present stage?

9. Analysis and Conclusion: It is well settled that the protection

under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not absolute. The sine qua non for its

applicability is the existence of a reasonable nexus between the alleged

act and the discharge of official duties.

10.1 In P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim,(supra) the Supreme Court

clarified that where official status merely furnishes the occasion or

opportunity for the commission of an offence, sanction is not required.

10.2. Similarly, in Shambhoo Nath Misra,(supra) it was held that offences

such as misappropriation and fabrication of records cannot be treated as

acts done in discharge of official duties.

10.3. In Bibhu Prasad Acharya,(supra) the Supreme Court reiterated

that sanction is necessary only where the act is directly and reasonably

NTR,J

connected with official functions. Acts ex facie beyond the scope of official

duty do not attract such protection.

10.4. Further, in Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka,(supra) it was

emphasized that Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend to every act of a

public servant but only to those integrally connected with official duties.

11. Applying the above principles, the allegations against the petitioner

namely, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, possession of

disproportionate assets, and laundering of proceeds of crime cannot, by

any stretch of legal reasoning, be construed as acts performed in the

discharge of official duties.

12. These acts are prima facie criminal in nature and fall outside the

protective ambit of official responsibilities, in effect, Section 197 Cr.P.C.

The mere fact that the petitioner held a public office does not entitle him

to claim statutory protection. Further, as held in P.K. Pradhan, the

question of sanction may, in appropriate cases, be examined at a later

stage based on evidence. At the present pre trial stage, interference on

this ground alone is unwarranted.

13. In light of the foregoing analysis, the plea regarding absence of

sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is untenable at this stage; the alleged

acts do not bear a reasonable nexus to official duties; the issue of

NTR,J

sanction, if at all relevant, can be examined during trial; the writ petition is

premature and lacks merit.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition seeking quashment of proceedings in

S.C. No. 109 of 2015 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 30.03.2026 svl