The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, possession of unexplained cash and gold has no nexus with official duties of the public servant. Therefore, prosecution sanction was not a prerequisite for taking cognizance. The cognizance order passed by the Special Court was legally sound.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a government official accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), holding that prosecution sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, was not required before taking cognizance in the case.
The petitioner, Ved Prakash Yadav, a public servant currently lodged in Jaipur Central Jail, approached the High Court challenging the order dated March 21, 2024, passed by the Special Judge (PMLA & CBI Cases), Jaipur Metro-I. The Special Court had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against him in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5/2024.
The petitioner argued that since he was a government employee, prosecution sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS was mandatory before cognizance could be taken. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions, including Enforcement Directorate vs. Bhibhu Prasad Acharya (2025) and rulings from the Chhattisgarh and Delhi High Courts.
The Enforcement Directorate highlighted Rs. 2,31,15,000 in cash and a gold bar worth approximately Rs. 61,00,000. were recovered from the petitioner’s residence during the search operation, and the same was found to be in his possession. The ED argued that the alleged acts did not relate to discharge of official duties, and therefore, no sanction was required.
The prosecution also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. (1997), to contend that offences involving personal gain unrelated to official functions do not attract protection requiring prior sanction.
The Court examined Section 218 of the BNSS, which mandates prior sanction only when the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.”
The High Court dismissed the revision petition.
The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the validity of the cognizance order and directed the trial court to consider the accused’s defence independently and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the High Court’s findings.
Case Details
Case Title: Ved Prakash Yadav Versus Directorate Of Enforcement
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1927/2024
Date: 13/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dheeraj Singhal with Mr.Pankaj Singhal & Ms.Bhawna Hadda
Counsel For Respondent: Akshay Bhardwaj with Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat
