##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No. 6055 OF 2025

DATE: 30.03.2026

Between :

Mr. Vanimisetty Gopala Reddy

… Petitioner AND

Union of India, Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary, and two others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:

“…to grant an or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Charge Sheet filed by the Respondent No. 3 pending as S.C. No. 109 of 2015 in ECIR No. 07/HZO/2012 (Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad) before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at Nampally, Hyderabad, as illegal, contrary to law, for want of sanction by the Government and thus vitiated and consequentially to set it aside/quash and pass such other order/s as the Hon’ble Court deems necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of the

case.”

2 NTR,J

W.P. No. 6055 of 2025

2. I have heard Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior

Standing Counsel representing the Directorate of Enforcement.

3.1. Factual Background: The petitioner, a retired Senior Divisional Engineer (West) in the South Central Railway, has been arrayed as an accused in proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI registered a First Information Report on 25.06.2010 alleging that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- and was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. These acts were alleged to constitute offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.2. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the petitioner was tried and convicted by the competent trial court. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2014, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner of all charges. However against the order of acquittal, a Special Leave Petition is filed and pending before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3.3. How so ever, on the basis of the same predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which qualifies as a “scheduled offence” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the

3 NTR,J

W.P. No. 6055 of 2025

Directorate of Enforcement initiated proceedings. A complaint was filed in S.C. No. 109 of 2015 alleging that the petitioner, along with his family members, had acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and projected such proceeds as untainted property, thereby committing the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA. Accordingly charges under the PMLA were framed on 13.03.2025. 3.4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that, as a public servant who was not removable from service without the sanction of the Government of India, and as the alleged acts were connected with the discharge of official duties, the continuation of proceedings without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Cr.P.C.) is legally impermissible.

4. Petitioner’s pleading: Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a mandatory precondition for a court to take cognizance of offences alleged against a public servant when such acts are reasonably connected with the discharge of official

duties.

5.1. Reliance is placed on P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (2001) 6 SCC 704, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although investigation may proceed, cognizance cannot be taken without prior sanction if the acts complained of are integrally connected with official

4 NTR,J

W.P. No. 6055 of 2025

duties. It is further submitted that the issue of sanction can b