Arun Pati Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:45816

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 283 of 2025

¶6

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

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, EOW / ACB District- Raipur, C.G .

¶10

	----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

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶12

09/09/2025

¶13

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.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the application I.A. No. 03/2025.

¶15

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

¶16

Digitallysigned byJYOTI JHA Date:2025.09.1117:48:20+0530

¶17

2

¶18

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.

¶19

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2025 is allowed. The delay of 90 days in filing criminal revision is condoned.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:-

¶23

(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

¶24

3

¶25

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.

¶26

(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

¶27

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.

¶28

(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

¶29

4

¶30

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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

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.

¶33

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that:-

¶34

5

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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,

¶37

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.

¶38

(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.

¶39

6

¶40

(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.

¶41

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶42

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?

¶43

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

¶44

7

¶45

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.

¶46

13. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶47

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 sanction¹ [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

¶48

(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;

¶49

(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:

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

8

¶53

are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty.

¶54

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..

¶55

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

¶56

9

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

19. In the result, the instant criminal revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶62

Jyoti

Arun Pati Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Pati Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Death (Gopal Anant) Mahendra Singh Anant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yogeshwari Bai Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. N.R. Marketings Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Vs Jagmohan

Dilip Chandrakar Vs Indu Yadaw