Judgment : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 422 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 05/10/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur, C.G. whereby the cognizance has been taken in prosecution complaint dated 28/06/2024 filed in ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14/10/2023 againstthe petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 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 and Section 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 19.04.2024, the ED registered an addendum ECIR based on the FIR No. 01/2024 registered by ACB/EOW, which in turn was registered on the ED's own complaint/ letter dated 09.01.2024. On 28.06.2024, after completion of investigation, the ED filed its prosecution complaint in the Subject ECIR before the Ld. Trial Court, arraigning the Petitioner as Accused No. 1. - On 05.10.2024, Ld. Special Judge passed the order thereby taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3 r/w Sec. 4 of the PMLA in relation to the Prosecution Complaint dated 28.06.2024 filed in the Subject ECIR inter alia against the Petitioner, and directed that a case be registered. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:- (a) at the time of passing the order on 05.10.2024 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 read with Section 65 PMLA. He would next contend that even as on date, no sanction u/s 218 BNSS has been obtained by the Respondent/ED for prosecution of the Petitioner. He would next contend that Section 218(1) BNSS having been obtained by the Respondent/ED 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. He would next contend that Section 218(1) BNSS having been obtained by the Respondent/ED 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. (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 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 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 for prosecution of a Public Servant, i.e., the Petitioner herein in the Subject Case, for the offence u/s 3, PMLA, and cognizance cannot be taken in the absence thereof. He would next contend that in the Prosecution Complaint dated 28.06.2024, 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. It is evident as per the allegations levelled by the Respondent/ED 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. It is evident as per the allegations levelled by the Respondent/ED 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. Further, Section 65 PMLA makes all provisions of the CrPC applicable to proceedings under the PMLA, including Section 197 CrPC. Thus, the protection under Section 197(1), CrPC extends to the Petitioner and the Ld. Special Judge erred in taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3 r/w Section 4 of the PMLA as against the Petitioner without the Respondent/ED having obtained previous sanction u/s 197(1), CrPC. (d) He would next contend that that Ld. Special Judge erroneously passed the Impugned Order thereby taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3 r/w Section 4, PMLA without any prior Sanction having been obtained by the Respondent/ED for prosecution of the alleged offence qua the Petitioner, being a Public Servant at the time of alleged commission of the alleged offence. 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. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that:- (A). In the instant case the prosecution complaint against the petitioner was filed on 28/06/2024 before the Special PMLA Court and cognizance was taken on 05/10/2024 by the learned trial Court. (B). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that:- (A). In the instant case the prosecution complaint against the petitioner was filed on 28/06/2024 before the Special PMLA Court and cognizance was taken on 05/10/2024 by the learned trial Court. (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, decided on 17/06/2022} wherein it has been laid down that if the applicants are made accused in the money- laundering case, there is no illegality and also there is no any bar under any law for their impleadment in money laundering case. (C) He would lastly contend that the respondent has written a letter dated 10/12/2024 to Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Finance, Government of India for grant of prosecution sanction under Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C. and the reply is awaited, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 previous sanction 1[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. 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. 12. 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 are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. 13. Therefore, in view of the well settled principles of law and for the fact that since 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, which is evident as per the allegations levelled by the Respondent/ED 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 ED has made requests to the concerned competent central Government for prosecution sanction, therefore, the ED knows very well that in this case prosecution sanction is essential to prosecute the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 05/10/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA) Raipur whereby the cognizance has been taken in Prosecution Complaint dated 28/06/2024 with respect to the petitioner is set aside. However, the respondent is granted liberty to proceed further after obtaining sanction from the competent authority before the trial Court for taking cognizance against the petitioner. 15. In the result, the instant criminal revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.