MUMBAI, Feb. 4 -- A special court on Tuesday rejected an application filed by former police officer, Sachin Waze, a central figure in an alleged Rs.100-crore extortion racket linked to former state home minister Anil Deshmukh, to drop money-laundering proceedings against him on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and absence of prosecution sanction. Dismissing the plea, special judge Mahesh K Jadhav held that allegations of extortion, illegal demand and handling of unlawful funds could not be treated as acts performed in discharge of official duty and therefore did not attract the protection of sanction provisions applicable to public servants. The court recorded that such conduct was "outside the scope of official duty" and could not be shielded at the pre-charge stage. "The responsible police officer is expected to act within the ambit of the law and not on the instruction of the Home Minister (Deshmukh) to do illegal activities," the court said, adding that Waze was "not a layman" and had crossed limits. In his application before the PMLA court (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Waze contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to take cognisance without prior sanction, arguing that the acts attributed to him were connected to his role as a police officer. He also contended that he had merely "handled" money allegedly collected from bar owners and was not involved in laundering or deriving any benefit from the proceeds, claiming that the ingredients of the offence under the PMLA were not attracted. Rejecting these submissions, the court recorded prima facie findings that Waze had collected approximately Rs.4.70 crore from bar owners between December 2020 and February 2021 and transferred the sums to associates of Deshmukh. The order notes that Waze himself admitted to convening meetings of bar owners and collecting money despite having no jurisdiction over bars and restaurants. The judge observed that sanction under criminal law is required only where the act complained of is "directly and reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty", and not where it involves abuse of authority for illegal gain. Rejecting Waze's submission that the alleged acts were connected to his public duty, the court held that they had "no nexus with his official duty" and were committed in a personal capacity, disentitling him from claiming sanction-based protection. The court also rejected Waze's argument that he could not be proceeded against under PMLA as he had merely handled money without laundering it. Holding that such a distinction could not be examined at the pre-charge stage, the judge ruled that "mere possession of the proceeds of crime was sufficient to invoke the provisions of the PMLA". The order clarified that whether the accused was a beneficiary of the proceeds or acted as a conduit was "a question to be dealt with during the trial and not at this interim stage". Dealing with Waze's reliance on his subsequent conduct and claims of cooperation, the court observed that his position, reputation, or past service record were not relevant while deciding an application questioning jurisdiction and sanction. The court further held that a prima facie case existed for framing of charges, noting that the statements of bar owners, documentary material and admissions attributed to the accused disclosed acts....