INTRODUCTION
In a judgment pronounced on 22nd December 2025 for W.P. (Cr.) No. 1043 of 2024, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi has reinforced the rule of law and institutional accountability by dismissing the repetition filed by former IAS Officer Pooja Singhal, which challenged the cognizance order taken by the Special court in connection with alleged money laundering charges. A single bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Ambuj Nath passed an order holding that Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides safeguards for public servants cannot be invoked as a protective shield for corrupt officials who are engaged in illegal acts and unauthorized accumulation of wealth in personal capacity. The Court’s judgement marks an integral pronouncement which establishes that criminal sanction requirements exist to protect legitimate governmental actions and not to immunize corruption and misappropriation of public funds.
BACKGROUND
The case commenced from an investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate of the state of Jharkhand into massive embezzlement of government money involving multiple officials. Pooja Singhal who served as Deputy Commissioner of Khunti between February 2009 to July 2010 was allegedly involved in fraudulent misappropriation of funds amounting crores of rupees. During her tenure, while assuming the position of principal authority who sanctions funds for development projects, she was found to be embezzling funds amounting up to Rs. 18.06 crores by the audit committee. The investigation further revealed that she had unauthorized the release of government funds with involvement from other engineers and contractors. Upon conducting raids on the premises of her associates and herself, Rs. 19.76 crores cash were recovered, along with incriminating evidence. Upon investigation, owing to the lack of legitimate sources, for these funds being provided by Singhal, she was arrested in May 2022. The Special Judge to cognizance of offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without fulfilling the mandate of obtaining prior sanction under section 197(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
KEY POINTS
- The court highlighted that the necessity for the protections under Section 197 exist to protect public servants and officials from frivolous legal consequences for the actions committed by them as a part of their official duty and not to shelter corrupt officials from the accountability for illegal acts committed for personal gain. Justice Ambuj Nath emphasized this by stating that sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not for shielding corrupt officials.
- The Court relied on an established precedent in the case of State of Orissa v Ganesh Chandra Jew (2004) 8 SCC 40
- based on which, the High Court clarified that the fundamental inquiry is whether the impounded act falls under the purview of official duty and that if an actor is wholly unconnected or manifestly of nexus to official functions, no sanction requirement can be attached to such act. The court observed that accumulation of illegal wealth by siphoning of state funds does not fall under the part of official duty of any public servant.
- The judgment went on to elaborate that even in circumstances where a public servant exceeds authorized scope while performing official duties, protection under section 197 can be applied if there is a reasonable nexus to the functions of official duty. But the act of unauthorized diversion of public funds for personal enrichment can be categorized as a personal criminal act which bears no connection to legitimate governmental function.
- The court held that lack of prior sanction at this stage of cognizant does not invalidate cognizant order itself and that procedural safeguards can be addressed at any stage of proceedings before announcement of judgment. This principle prevents technical defects from enabling escape of accountability by criminals.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The ruling of the High Court has piqued attention from advocates and governance experts who engage in anti-corruption laws who are viewing it as reaffirming institutional commitment to prosecute official misconduct. Hon’ble Justice Ambuj Nath took reliance from the case of Enforcement Directorate v Bibhu Prasad Acharya (2024) SCC Online SC 3181, wherein it was held that the safeguards under Section 197 apply to PMLA proceedings but does apply for providing immunity to corrupt officials. Many legal scholars came to the opinion that this judgement closes down on a loophole that has been exploited by several personnel in the past to escape legal consequences for misuse of their official positions as public servants.
CONCLUSION
The Jharkhand High Court decision in the Pooja Singhal case represents a key moment in asserting that procedural safeguards for public servants are for a legitimate but limited purpose. That is, to protect them from malicious harassment for actions reasonably connected to official duties and not to provide sanctuary for corruption. By passing a verdict that illegal acquiring of state funds for the purposes of personal gain under the guise of official duty does not deem for the safeguards under Section 197 to be applied for criminals to exploit this provision to escape scrutiny.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: KRISHNA KOUSHIK
