Possession of Rs. 2.31 Crore Not 'Official Duty': Rajasthan HC Rejects Public Servant's Plea against ED Prosecution in PMLA Case [Read Order]

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a plea filed by a public servant challenging his prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It was found that the alleged act of possessing a large amount of unaccounted cash and gold "does not fall within the purview of 'an act performed in official discharge of duties'."

Ved Prakash Yadav, the petitioner, challenged an order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, which had taken cognizance of offenses against him under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The primary argument of the petitioner was that as a public servant, the prosecution against him was initiated without the mandatory prior sanction required under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The core issue before the Court was to determine whether the mandatory prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant was applicable in this case, considering the allegations against the petitioner did not pertain to actions taken in the discharge of his official duties.

Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here

The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel relied on several judgments to argue that sanction was indispensable for prosecution. However, the ED's counsel strongly opposed this, submitting that a search of the petitioner's residence had unearthed a sum of Rs. 2.31 crore in cash and a gold bar valued at Rs. 61 lakh, which were in his possession.

In its order, the Court found that the alleged act of possessing a large amount of unaccounted cash and gold "does not fall within the purview of 'an act performed in official discharge of duties'." Consequently, the Court held that the protection afforded by Section 218 of the BNSS was not applicable, and no prior sanction was required. The Court found no merit in the petition and rejected it, stating that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable to the facts of the case.

The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the present petition and would not influence the trial court. The petitioner was informed that he would be at liberty to raise all appropriate defenses during the trial.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates