Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 422 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 01/02/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur, C.G. whereby the cognizance has been taken in for the offences in FIR No.01/2024 against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of this case are that:- - On 16.01.2024, the ACB/ EOW, Raipur registered an FIR bearing no. 01/2024 for commission of offences u/S 120B and 409 IPC andSection 13(1)(a) and Section 13(2) read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (as amended) inter alia arraigning the Petitioner as an accused. - On 01.02.2025, the Respondent filed the Subject Charge-sheet in the Subject FIR. Notably, it has specifically been stated by the Respondent in the charge-sheet that an application for sanction to prosecute the Petitioner has been made to the State Government. - On the same day, i.e., 01.02.2025, the Ld. Trial Court passed the Impugned Order, thereby taking cognizance of the alleged offences, without awaiting the necessary sanction u/s. 19 PC Act or under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the appropriate authority for prosecution of the Petitioner. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:- (a) at the time of passing the order on 01/02/2025 where cognizance of the offence of money laundering was taken, no sanction u/s 197(1) CrPC or u/s 218(1) BNSS was obtained by the Respondent/ED for prosecution of the Petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner was a Public Servant at 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 and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (b) He would next contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in the case of Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, 2024 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 money laundering u/s 3 of the PMLA as well. (c) He would next contend that in the subject FIR, the Respondent/ ED has alleged that the Petitioner, who was the MD, MARKFED at the time of commission of the alleged offences, had issued directions to DMOs and employees of MARKFED to clear bills of only those rice millers who had paid the incentive amount to Roshan Chandrakar, and intentionally kept pending/ delayed files of those rice millers who refused to pay the extortion amount. Thus, the protection under Section 197(1), CrPC as well as under Section 19 of the PC Act extends to the Petitioner and the Ld. Trial Court erred in taking cognizance against the Petitioner without the Respondent/ED having obtained previous sanction u/s 197(1), CrPC. (d) 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) and would submit that the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence as alleged in the subject FIR 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. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that:- (A) So far as the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, has already sent a letter to the Director, Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, regarding prosecution sanction against the present petitioner in connection with Crime No.01/2024, registered under Sections 384, 409 and 120-B of the IPC and under Sections 13 (1) (a) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (B) He would next contend that the respondent has already sent a letter to the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Raipur on 31/01/2025 much before the final report was submitted before the Special Court. The same was forwarded by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department to the Director, Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Telecom, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi on 14/02/2025. The same was forwarded by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department to the Director, Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Telecom, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi on 14/02/2025. (C) He would next contend that the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, has already accorded the prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the subject crime number registered against the present petitioner vide sanction letter dated 05/02/2025, therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. 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? 7. The term public servant has been defined in Section 2 (28) of the Bharitya Nyay Sanhita, and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was working as MD, MARKFED on deputation in the State of Chhattisgarh and he is in the service of Central Government, therefore, he is public servant as defined under Section 2 (28) of the BNS. 8. Now coming to the question of second question that whether petitioner’s alleged act reasonably connect with the discharge of official duty? 9. The Supreme Court in Enforcement Directorate v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3181 has held thus in paras 17, 18 & 19 which are reproduced hereinbelow:- 17. Section 65 makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to all proceedings under the PMLA, provided the same are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the PMLA. The words 'All other proceedings' include a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA. We have carefully perused the provisions of the PMLA. We do not find that there is any provision therein which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC. Considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1). No such provision has been pointed out to us. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. 18. Considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1). No such provision has been pointed out to us. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. 18. Section 71 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the PMLA notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 65 is a prior section which specifically makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to PMLA, subject to the condition that only those provisions of the CrPC will apply which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. Therefore, when a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 71 (1) cannot override the provision of CrPC which applies to the PMLA. Once we hold that in view of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 197(1) will apply to the provisions of the PMLA, Section 71 cannot be invoked to say that the provision of Section 197(1) of CrPC will not apply to the PMLA. A provision of Cr. P.C., made applicable to the PMLA by Section 65, will not be overridden by Section 71. Those provisions of CrPC which apply to the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 will continue to apply to the PMLA, notwithstanding Section 71. If Section 71 is held applicable to such provisions of the CrPC, which apply to the PMLA by virtue of Section 65, such interpretation will render Section 65 otiose. No law can be interpreted in a manner which will render any of its provisions redundant. 19. In this case, the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, has been taken against the respondents accused without obtaining previous sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct. We must clarify that the effect of the impugned judgment is that the orders of the Special Court taking cognizance only as against the accused B.P. Acharya and Adityanath Das stand set aside. The order of cognizance against the other accused will remain unaffected. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct. We must clarify that the effect of the impugned judgment is that the orders of the Special Court taking cognizance only as against the accused B.P. Acharya and Adityanath Das stand set aside. The order of cognizance against the other accused will remain unaffected. However, it will be open for the appellant to move the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence against the two respondents if a sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC is granted in future. This liberty will be subject to legal and factual objections available to the respondents. Hence, the appeals must fail and are dismissed subject to what is observed. 10. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinbelow:- 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 1 previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (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; (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: 11. The essential conditions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are that :- (1) The offence mentioned therein must be committed by a public servant; (2) The public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be; (3) The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act; (4) If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of protection; (5) The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity; (6) Before Section 197 can be invoked it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. (7) The act can be performed in discharge of his official duty as well as in dereliction thereof. The bar created by Section 197 is absolute, in the absence of sanction where Section 197 applies, cognizance of the offence is barred. 12. (7) The act can be performed in discharge of his official duty as well as in dereliction thereof. The bar created by Section 197 is absolute, in the absence of sanction where Section 197 applies, cognizance of the offence is barred. 12. Therefore, in view of the well settled principles of law and for the fact that since Respondent/ EOW/ACB has alleged that the Petitioner, who was the MD, MARKFED at the time of commission of the alleged offences, had issued directions to DMOs and employees of MARKFED to clear bills of only those rice millers who had paid the incentive amount to Roshan Chandrakar, and intentionally kept pending/ delayed files of those rice millers who refused to pay the extortion amount, which is evident as per the allegations levelled by the Respondent/EOW/ACB in the Prosecution Complaint dated 28.06.2024, the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties as MD, MARKFED, therefore, there is official nexus in doing the said act. Furthermore, learned counsel for the Respondent has contended that the EOW/ACB has made requests to the concerned competent central Government for prosecution sanction, therefore, the EOW/ACB knows very well that in this case prosecution sanction is essential to prosecute the petitioner. 13. In this case, this Court has found that on 01/02/2025 the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 384, 409, 120B IPC and Sections 11, 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, on that date there is no sanction order filed by the EOW/ACB before the concerned trial Court and it is on 05 th of February, 2025 the EOW/ACB has obtained the sanction from the law and legislative department, C.G., however, since the petitioner is a Central Government employee, therefore, as per para 10 of the reply filed by the respondent that prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 is concerned in this regard it is submitted that the Government of Chhattisgarh, GAD, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, C.G. has already sent a letter to the Director, Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, regarding prosecution sanction against the present petitioner, therefore, it is crystal clear that on the date of taking cognizance i.e. on 01/02/2025 there is no prosecution sanction has been obtained by the EOW/ACB. Accordingly, the cognizance taken by the trial Court is illegal. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 01/02/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge P.C. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur whereby the cognizance has been taken in Special Criminal (Prevention of Corruption Act) Case No.01/2025 arising out of FIR No.01/2024 dated 16/01/2024, with respect to the petitioner is set aside. However, the respondent is granted liberty to proceed further after obtaining prosecution sanction from the competent authority before the trial Court to proceed further with regard to taking cognizance afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law on its own merits. 15. In the result, the instant criminal revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.