PANJIM: In a major relief to PWD Minister Digambar Kamat and former Chief Minister Churchill Alemao, the Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday disposed of their criminal revision applications challenging the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) proceedings in the alleged Louis Berger bribery-linked money laundering case, holding that the central agency had failed to obtain prior sanction on the date the Special Court took cognisance of the offence.
Justice Ashish S. Chavan set aside the Special Court, Mapusa’s order dated July 21, 2018, taking cognisance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and issuing process against the two leaders. However, the Court clarified that the ED would be at liberty to approach the Special Court afresh if sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is granted by the Governor in future.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The Goa Police had registered an FIR on July 21, 2015, in the alleged Louis Berger bribery matter against Kamat and Alemao. Based on the predicate offence, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on August 7, 2015, formally commencing money laundering proceedings under the PMLA.
Subsequently, on July 12, 2018, the ED filed a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA before the Special Court at Mapusa, which on July 21, 2018, took cognisance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. Charges under Section 3 of the PMLA were later framed against both applicants on July 22, 2021.
In their separate criminal revision pleas, Kamat and Alemao had sought quashing of the cognisance and process orders on multiple grounds, but during final arguments confined their challenge to one central issue — that the ED had not obtained prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC before prosecuting them.
The applicants argued that since both were public servants at the relevant time, the Special Court could not have legally taken cognisance of the PMLA complaint without sanction from the competent authority. In support, they relied upon the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Directorate of Enforcement versus Bibhu Prasad Acharya, wherein the apex court held that the protection under Section 197(1) CrPC applies even to prosecutions under the PMLA.
Adv Parag Rao argued on behalf of Kamat, while Advocates Sahil Sardessai and Mark Valadares appeared for Alemao.
Representing the ED, Adv Sidharth Samant conceded before the High Court that no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained by the agency on the date the cognisance order was passed.
Accepting this legal position, the High Court held that the Special Court’s cognisance order could not be sustained in law and accordingly quashed the subsequent proceedings, while reserving liberty to the ED to revive prosecution upon obtaining proper sanction.
