SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, November 05, 2022

Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881
(Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988)
[Act 49 of 1988 as amended up to Act 34 of 2019] [Updated as on 1-10-2021]
[9th September, 1988]

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARY

1. Short title and extent

2. Definitions

CHAPTER II

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JUDGES

3. Power to appoint Special Judges

4. Cases triable by Special Judges

5. Procedure and powers of Special Judge

6. Power to try summarily

CHAPTER III

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed

7-A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or
by exercise of personal influence

8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant

9. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation

10. Person in charge of commercial organisation to be guilty of offence

11. Public servant obtaining [undue advantage], without consideration from person
concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant

12. Punishment for abetment of offences

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant

14. Punishment for habitual offender

 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Punishment for attempt

16. Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine

CHAPTER IV

INVESTIGATION INTO CASES UNDER THE ACT

17. Persons authorised to investigate

17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations

made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties

18. Power to inspect bankers' books

CHAPTER IV-A

ATTACHMENT AND FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY

18-A. Provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to attachment

under this Act.

CHAPTER V

SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution

20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage

21. Accused person to be a competent witness

22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply subject to certain modifications

23. Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under

24. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution

25. Military, Naval and Air Force or other law not to be affected

26. Special Judges appointed under Act 46 of 1952 to be Special Judges appointed
under this Act

27. Appeal and revision

28. Act to be in addition to any other law

29. Amendment of the Ordinance 38 of 1944

29-A. Power to make rules

30. Repeal and saving

31. Omission of certain sections of Act 45 of 1860

———
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

[Act 49 of 1988 as amended up to Act 34 of 2019] [Updated as [9th September,
on 1-10-2021] 1988]
———
An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and
for matters connected therewith
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-ninth Year of the Republic of India as
follows:—
Statement of Objects and Reasons—1. The Bill is intended to make the existing
anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening
the provisions.
2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was amended in 1964 based on the
recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. There are provisions in Chapter IX of
the Indian Penal Code to deal with public servants and those who abet them by way of
criminal misconduct. There are also provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944, to enable attachment of ill-gotton wealth obtained through corrupt
means, including from transferees of such wealth. The Bill seeks to incorporate all
these provisions with modifications so as to make the provisions more effective in
combating corruption among public servants.
3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages widening the scope of the definition of the
expression “public servant”, incorporation of offences under Sections 161 to 165-A of
the Indian Penal Code, enhancement of penalties provided for these offences and
incorporation of a provision that the order of the trial court upholding the grant of
sanction for prosecution would be final if it has not already been challenged and the
trial has commenced. In order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day
trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of
powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been included.
4. Since the provisions of Sections 161 to 165-A are incorporated in the proposed
legislation with an enhanced punishment, it is not necessary to retain those sections in
the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, it is proposed to delete those sections with the
necessary saving provision.
5. The notes on clauses explain in detail the provisions of the Bill.
Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act 16 of 2018.—The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provides for prevention of corruption and for
matters connected therewith. The ratification by India of the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption, the international practice on treatment of the offence
of bribery and corruption and judicial pronouncements have necessitated a review of
the existing provisions of the Act and the need to amend it so as to fill in gaps in
description and coverage of the offence of bribery so as to bring it in line with the
current international practice and also to meet more effectively, the country's
obligations under the aforesaid Convention. Hence, the present Bill.
2. The salient features of the Bill, inter alia, are as follows—
(a) Section 7 of the Act at present covers the offence of public servant taking
gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. The
definition of offence is proposed to be substituted by a new comprehensive
definition which covers all aspects of passive bribery, including the solicitation
and acceptance of bribe through intermediaries and also acts of public servants
acting outside their competence;
(b) the Act at present does not contain any provisions directly dealing with active
domestic bribery, that is, the offence of giving bribe. Section 12 of the Act which
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

provides for punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or Section

11, covers the offence indirectly. Section 24 provides that a statement made by
a bribe giver in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under
Sections 7 to 11, 13 and 15 of the Act shall not subject him to prosecution under
Section 12. Experience has shown that in a vast majority of cases, the bribe-
giver goes scot free by taking resort to the provisions of Section 24 and it
becomes increasingly difficult to tackle consensual bribery. The aforesaid
Convention enjoins that the promise, offering or giving, to a public official,
directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or
another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the
exercise of his or her official duties, be made a criminal offence. Accordingly, it is
proposed to substitute a new Section 8 to meet the said obligation;
(c) as the proposed new definitions of bribery, both as regards the solicitation and
acceptance of undue advantage and as regards the promise, offering or giving, to
a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, are found to be
comprehensive enough to cover all offences presently provided in Section 8
which covers taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to
influence public servant; Section 9 which covers taking gratification, for exercise
of personal influence with public servant; Section 10 which provides for
punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or
Section 9; and Section 11 which provides for public servant obtaining valuable
thing without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business
transacted by such public servant; and also the offences presently defined in
clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act which covers
criminal misconduct by a public servant, it is proposed to omit the said sections;
(d) it is proposed to substitute Section 9 to provide punishment for the offence
relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation. A commercial
organisation will be guilty of this offence if any person associated with it offers,
promises or gives a financial or other advantage to a public servant intending to
obtain or retain business or some advantage in the conduct of business for the
commercial organisation. The proposed Section 10 provides for punishment of
persons in charge of a commercial organisation which has been guilty of the
offence under the proposed Section 9;
(e) Section 12 at present provides for punishment for abetment of offences defined
in Section 7 or Section 11. It is proposed to substitute Section 12 of the Act to
provide punishment for abetment of all offences under the Act;
(f) it is proposed to substitute sub-section (1) of Section 13 with a new sub-section
so as to omit the existing clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) as
mentioned above; to incorporate the element of intentional enrichment in the
existing clause (e) relating to possession of disproportionate assets by a public
servant; and to modify the definition of “known sources of income” as contained
in explanation, to mean income received from any lawful source, that is, by doing
away with the requirement of intimation in accordance with any law, rules or
orders applicable to a public servant;
(g) Section 14 at present provides for habitual commission of offences under
Sections 8, 9 and 12. It is proposed to substitute Section 14 of the Act to
provide punishment for habitual commission of all offences under the Act;
(h) the Prevention of Corruption Act, at present, does not specifically provide for the
confiscation of bribe and the proceeds of bribery. A Bill, namely, the Prevention
of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2008, to amend the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, providing, inter alia, for insertion of a new Chapter IV-A in the
Prevention of Corruption Act for the attachment and forfeiture of property of
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

corrupt public servants on the lines of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance,
1944, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 19th December, 2008 and was passed
by the Lok Sabha on 23rd December, 2008. However, the said Bill lapsed due to
dissolution of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha. It is proposed to insert similar
provisions on the lines of the 2008 Bill in the Prevention of Corruption Act;
(i) the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2008 had proposed an
amendment to Section 19 of the Act on the lines of Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for extending protection of prior sanction of the
Government or competent authority after retirement or demittance of office by a
public servant so as to provide a safeguard to a public servant from vexatious
prosectuion for any bona fide omission or commission in the discharge of his
official duties. The said Bill having lapsed, this protection is, at present, not
available for a person who has ceased to be a public servant. Section 19 is,
therefore, proposed to be amended to provide the said protection to the persons
who ceased to be public servants on the lines of the said Bill. Further, in the light
of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the question of amending Section 19
of the Act to lay down clear criteria and procedure for sanction of prosecution,
including the stage at which sanction can be sought, timelines within which
order has to be passed, was also examined by the Central Government and it is
proposed to incorporate appropriate provisions in Section 19 of the Act;
(j) Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 contains a
protection of prior approval of the Central Government in respect of officers
working at policy making levels in the Central Government before any inquiry or
investigation is conducted against them by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment. The basic principle behind the protection under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946, being the same, namely, protection of honest civil
servants from harassment by way of investigation or prosecution for things done
in bona fide performance of public duty, it is felt that the protection under both
these provisions should be available to public servants even after they cease to
be public servants or after they cease to hold sensitive policy level positions, as
the case may be. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend Section 6-A of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extending the protection of prior
approval of the Central Government before conducting any inquiry or
investigation in respect of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
to civil servants holding such senior policy level positions even after they cease
to hold such positions due to reversion or retirement or other reasons.
3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.
► Historical situation leading to enactment of, and of its predecessor Act—Recapitulated.
—The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by the First and Second
World War conditions. Corruption, at the initial stages, was considered confined to the bureaucracy
which had the opportunities to deal with a variety of State largesse in the form of contracts, licences
and grants. Even after the war the opportunities for corruption continued as large amounts of
government surplus stores were required to be disposed of by the public servants. As a
consequence of the wars the shortage of various goods necessitated the imposition of controls and
extensive schemes of post-war reconstruction involving the disbursement of huge sums of money
which lay in the control of the public servants giving them a wide discretion with the result of luring
them to the glittering shine of wealth and property. In order to consolidate and amend the laws
relating to prevention of corruption and matters connected thereto, the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 was enacted which was amended from time to time. In the year 1988 a new Act on the subject
being Act 49 of 1988 was enacted with the object of dealing with the circumstances, contingencies
and shortcomings which were noticed in the working and implementation of the 1947 Act. The law
relating to prevention of corruption was essentially made to deal with the public servants not as
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

understood in common parlance but specifically defined in the Act, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh,
(2000) 5 SCC 88 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 886.
► Object and purpose of.—The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was brought into force with
the avowed purpose of effective prevention of bribery and corruption, Govt. of A.P. v. P. Venku
Reddy, (2002) 7 SCC 631 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1826.
This Act is enacted to consolidate and amend law relating to prevention of corruption. It is
intended to make corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and strengthening
provisions. It seeks to provide for speedy trial in public interest as legislature has become aware of
corruption amongst public servants. Its purpose is to track down corrupt public servants and punish
them, Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36 : (2014) 6 SCC
(Cri) 42.
The object of Act, held, was to make effective provisions for prevention of bribe and corruption
rampant amongst public servants, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
886; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172, followed.
► Nature and interpretation of.—The Act is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of
public servants and should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and not liberally in
favour of the accused, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 886.
► Corruption—Characteristics and effects of.—Corruption is termed as a plague which is
not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV
leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political
system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight.
Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and
targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in
the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence-shaking of the socio-economic-political system
in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, (2000)
5 SCC 88 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 886.
► Equal treatment.—Equal and similar treatment of public servants against whom there is
suspicion of commission of crime or allegations of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, held, is a must, Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar, (2020) 20 SCC 531 : AIR 2020 SC 2023.
Chapter I
PRELIMINARY
1. Short title and extent.—(1) This Act may be called the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
(2) It extends to the whole of India 2 [* * *] and it applies also to all citizens of
India outside India.
2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “election” means any election, by whatever means held under any law for the
purpose of selecting members of Parliament or of any Legislature, local
authority or other public authority;
3
[(aa) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act and the
expression “prescribe” shall be construed accordingly;]
(b) “public duty” means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or
the community at large has an interest;
Explanation.—In this clause “State” includes a corporation established by or
under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or
controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined
in S. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(c) “public servant” means—
(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the
Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;
(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority;
(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or

controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as
defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether
by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory
functions;
(v) any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in
connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator,
receiver or commissioner appointed by such court;
(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been
referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public
authority;
(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to
prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an
election or part of an election;
(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or
required to perform any public duty;
(ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a
registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or
banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central
Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by
or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned
or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as
defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service
Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any
selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the
conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such
Commission or Board;
(xi) any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body,
professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever
designation called, of any University and any person whose services have
been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection
with holding or conducting examinations;
(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational,
scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner
established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the
Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public
authority.
Explanation 1.—Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public
servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.
Explanation 2.—Wherever the words “public servant” occur, they shall be
understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a
public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that
situation.
4
[(d) “undue advantage” means any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—
(a) the word “gratification” is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to
gratifications estimable in money
(b) the expression “legal remuneration” is not restricted to remuneration paid
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to a public servant, but includes all remuneration which he is permitted by

the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to receive.]
► Public Servant.—Licensed surveyors under Section 18-A Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, are “public servant” for purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as they perform
statutory duties/public function, not only to aid and assist State Government in its statutory functions,
but are also controlled by State Government in their functioning as licensed surveyors, State v. C.N.
Manjunath, (2017) 11 SCC 361 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 325.
Chairman/Managing Director or Executive Director of a private bank operating under licence
issued by RBI under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, holds an office and performs public duty so as
to attract definition of public servant for the purpose of PC Act, 1988. However, such accused
person cannot be said to be public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC, as offence under
Section 409 IPC may not get attracted, CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788 : (2016) 2 SCC
(Cri) 222.
The definition of “public servant” under Section 21 IPC, held, is of no relevance under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakarrao, (2002) 7 SCC 636 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 1831; State of Maharasthra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah, (2000) 2 SCC 699 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 533, explained and distinguished.
While construing the definition of “public servant” in clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act,
held, the Court should adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to the intention of the
legislature, Govt. of A.P. v. P. Venku Reddy, (2002) 7 SCC 631 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1826.
Member of Parliament is a “public servant”, P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4
SCC 626 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1108; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri)
172, distinguished; Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa, 1993 Cri LJ 3604 : (1993) 3 Crimes 198,
approved.
The expression “public servant” used in the Prevention of Corruption Act is undoubtedly wide
enough to denote every Judge, including Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court, K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734.
► Term “university” — Scope.— A “deemed university” and the officials therein, do not
perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a university simpliciter, and
the officials therein. Hence, a “deemed university”, held, falls within the ambit of the term “university”
under Section 2(c) (xi) and its officials, held, fall within definition of “public servant” under the PC
Act, 1988. Simply speaking, any person, who is a Vice-Chancellor, any member of any governing
body, professor, reader, lecturer, any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of
any university, is said to be a public servant. Further, the definition inter alia, covers any person
whose services have been availed of by a university, or any other public authority in connection with
holding or conducting examinations, State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, (2020) 20
SCC 360.
► Public duty — Meaning.— Any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at
large has any interest is called a public duty, State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah,
(2020) 20 SCC 360.
Chapter II
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JUDGES
3. Power to appoint Special Judges.—(1) The Central Government or the State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special
Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases
as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely:—
(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and
(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any
of the offences specified in clause (a).
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this
Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an
Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

► Power of State Legislature to establish Special Courts.— Orissa Special Courts Act,
2006 specifically deals with offences under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and provides for Special Courts for trial of said offences, and while under PC Act, 1988 State in any
case authority to appoint Special Judges in respect of all offences under PC Act, 1988, held, not
violative of Article 247. Language employed in Article 247 does not take away jurisdiction of State
Legislature for constitution of courts. Schedule VII List III Entry 11-A of the Constitution was
transferred from Entry 3 of List I of Schedule VII by 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976 in
order to make it a concurrent power. Under scheme of the Constitution, courts as established by
States are to administer laws made by Parliament as well as by State Legislature. Purpose of Article
247, which commences with a non obstante clause, is to confer power on Parliament to create
additional courts for better administration of a particular Union law, but does not mention that States
cannot make laws for adjudication and administration of justice in respect of a parliamentary
legislation, Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 1.
► Appointment of Special Judge.—Government can appoint a Special Judge for an area or
areas and can also appoint a Special Judge for a case or group of cases within that area,
Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 670.
► Validity of Section 3(1).—Section 3(1), held, not unguided, arbitrary or discriminatory and
not violative of Articles 14 and 21, J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 670.
► Jurisdiction and power of Special Judge.—Special Judge appointed under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 has jurisdiction to try all offences connected/related to/committed as part of
same set of transactions for which public officials are charged under PC Act (National Rural Health
Mission Scam herein). That is to say, jurisdiction to try all such PC Act and/or non-PC Act offences
allegedly committed by a person other than a public servant. Such jurisdiction of Special Judge,
held, following Essar Teleholdings, (2013) 8 SCC 1, is not affected and is retained even if the sole
public servant dies before commencement of trial. Furthermore, Special Judge can of course try
non-PC Act cases alone against non-public servants when his appointment is to try all connected
cases, as in present case, HCL Infosystem Ltd. v. CBI, (2016) 9 SCC 281 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S)
587 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 438.
Even if City Civil Judge was found to be not empowered by issuing notification under Section 3
(1) to try a particular criminal case, held, that could not be a ground to quash the proceedings.
State v. S. Bangarappa, ((2001) 1 SCC 369 : (2001) SCC (Cri) 152.
► Allocation of cases.—Allocation or distribution of the cases among the Special Judges in
purely an administrative act and hence that could be done by an Acting Chief Justice and even if
that is considered as an irregularity that is not of such magnitude as to require Supreme Court's
intervention, J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 670.
► Speedy trial.—Speedier trial of corruption cases against public servants/officers holding high
government offices being a relevant consideration it cannot be said that by appointing separate
Special Judges for speedier trial of those cases the Government has either singled out cases
against its political opponents or that the power has been exercised by the Government for political
targeting, J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 670.
► Under appointment of Special Judge.—High Court can nominate officer(s) of rank of
District Judge for appointment and posting as Special Judge(s) under Section 3(1) of the Act,
Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. Delhi High Court, (2013) 8 SCC 1 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 744.
► General Assam Rifles Court.—General Assam Rifles Court (GARC), held, has jurisdiction to
try offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, against members of Assam Rifles. Section 4 of PC
Act is not irreconcilable with Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to such extent that they
cannot stand together, Union of India v. Ranjit Kumar Saha, (2019) 7 SCC 505.
4. Cases triable by Special Judges.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in
force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by Special
Judges only.
(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the
Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than
one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the
Central Government.
(3) When trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence, other than an
offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
5 [(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

the trial of an offence shall be held, as far as practicable, on day-to-day basis and an
endeavour shall be made to ensure that the said trial is concluded within a period of
two years:
Provided that where the trial is not concluded within the said period, the special
Judge shall record the reasons for not having done so:
Provided further that the said period may be extended by such further period, for
reasons to be recorded in writing but not exceeding six months at a time; so, however,
that the said period together with such extended period shall not exceed ordinarily
four years in aggregate.]
► Scope of Section 4(2).—Section 4(2), held, not subject to provisions of CrPC, CBI v. Braj
Bhushan Prasad, (2001) 9 SCC 432.
The word ‘case’ in second part of sub-section (2) includes ‘cases’. Hence when a Special Judge
or Judges is/are appointed for a case or group of cases then only that Special Judge can hear
those cases, J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 670.
► Jurisdiction of Special Judge.—A Special Judge is not precluded altogether from trying any
other offence, other than offence specified in Section 3 thereof. A person charged of an offence
under the Act may in view of sub-section (3) of Section (4) be charged at the same trial of any
offence under any other law with which he may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged
at the same trial. Thus a public servant who is charged of an offence under the provisions of the Act
may be charged by the Special Judge at the same trial of any offence under IPC if the same is
committed in a manner contemplated by Section 220 of the Code, Vivek Gupta v. CBI, (2003) 8
SCC 628.
► Public Servants.—Whether MPs and MLAs are public servants or not within the meaning of
Section 21 IPC, has been decided by two Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court. While in
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172, it was categorically held that
an MLA is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC, in P.V. Narasimha Rao v.
State, (1998) 4 SCC 626 the said view was distinguished and the majority view was that MLAs and
MPs are public servants for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, State of W.B. v.
Shyamadas Banerjee, (2008) 9 SCC 45 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 671.
► 2G spectrum cases.—Though petitioners (accused persons) not charged under PC Act,
1988 neither for conspiracy nor for abetment to commit offences under PC Act, 1988 but only for
offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC but in course of same transaction for which public officials
charged under PC Act, 1988 and in course of 2G Spectrum Scam transactions. They can be tried
together with other co-accused of 2G Scam case who are charged under PC Act, 1988, Essar
Teleholdings Ltd. v. Delhi High Court, (2013) 8 SCC 1 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 744.
► Disproportionate assets case.—In disproportionate assets case, sole public servant (A-1)
died and case against her abated but conviction, sentence, confiscation and forfeiture orders
against the rest, held, sustainable, thus, resorted, State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha, (2017) 6
SCC 263 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 179 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 1.
5. Procedure and powers of Special Judge.—(1) A Special Judge may take
cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in
trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) A Special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person
supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence,
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of
the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every
other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof
and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (1) to (5) of
Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed to have
been tendered under Section 307 of that Code.
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as they are not inconsistent
with this Act, apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge; and for the purposes of
the said provisions, the Court of the Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of
Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Judge shall be
deemed to be a public prosecutor.
(4) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained
in sub-section (3), the provisions of Sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a
Special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions, a Special Judge shall be
deemed to be a Magistrate.
(5) A Special Judge may pass upon any person convicted by him any sentence
authorised by law for the punishment of the offence of which such person is convicted.
(6) A Special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under this Act, shall
exercise all the powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance 38 of 1944).
► Confiscation/Forfeiture/Attachment.—Special Judge under PC Act, held, competent to
dispose of property attached under Section 452 CrPC, State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha, (2017)
6 SCC 263 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 179 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 1.
► Cognizance of cases.—Alternatives available for cognizance of cases triable under PC Act,
1988 are (A) normal route via Magistrate and then committal to Special Judge, or (B) direct
cognizance by Special Judge permitted under Section 5(1) of PC Act, 1988, State v. V. Arul
Kumar, (2016) 11 SCC 733 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 715 : (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 381.
► Powers of Special Judge.—Special Judge can deal with a case even during pendency of
police investigation and prior to taking cognizance of the offence. Special Judge can exercise all the
power of Sessions Judge as provided under the CrPC in relation to the proceeding under the P.C.
Act of 1988 so far they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the grant
of anticipatory bail or regular bail is within the exclusive power of Special Judge. Ravi Nandan
Sahay, In re, 1993 Cri LJ 2436 (FB).
Power of Special Judge to tender pardon in terms of Section 306 CrPC, held, not affected by
deeming provision in Section 5(2) regarding pardon to approver in terms of Section 307 CrPC.
Deeming clause in Section 5(2) is for limited purpose mentioned therein viz. that pardon tendered
by Special Judge would be deemed to be tendered under Section 307 CrPC. It is not to fetter power
of Special Judge to grant pardon in terms of Section 306 CrPC. Section 5(2) of PC Act clearly
confers power to grant pardon under Section 306 CrPC subject to the deeming clause, Bangaru
Laxman v. State, (2012) 1 SCC 500 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 422 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 487.
Special Judge is treated as Magistrate and enjoys all Magisterial powers available under CrPC,
Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705.
6. Power to try summarily.—(1) Where a Special Judge tries any offence specified in
sub-section (1) of Section 3, alleged to have been committed by a public servant in
relation to the contravention of any special order referred to in sub-section (1) of
Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or of an order
referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of that section, then, notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act or Section 260 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Special Judge shall try the offence
in a summary way, and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial:

Provided that, in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it
shall be lawful for the Special Judge to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one year:
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a
summary trial under this section, it appears to the Special Judge that the nature of the
case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have
to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily,
the Special Judge shall, after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and
thereafter recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to hear or
rehear the case in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the said Code for the
trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), there shall be no appeal by a convicted person
in any case tried summarily under this section in which the Special Judge passes a
sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month, and of fine not exceeding two
thousand rupees whether or not any order under Section 452 of the said Code is made
in addition to such sentence, but an appeal shall lie where any sentence in excess of
the aforesaid limits is passed by the Special Judge.
► Jurisdiction.—It is no doubt true that the policy under Section 6 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 is that there should not be unnecessary harassment of a public servant. But if
the accused ceases to be a public servant and loses his protective cover under Section 6 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or Section 197 CrPC and is open to prosecution without
sanction having to be obtained, it would also necessarily mean that the Special Judge under the
Special Courts Act, 1949, would cease to have jurisdiction over the accused in terms of Section 4 of
the Special Courts Act, 1949, State of W.B. v. Shyamadas Banerjee, (2008) 9 SCC 45 : (2008) 3
SCC (Cri) 671.
► Applicability of rule of ejusdem generis.—It is not correct to assume that Section 6(1) of
the Act should be read ejusdem generis so as to apply it only to such public servants where there is
relationship of master and servant between them and their employer. The provisions of Section 6(1)
of the Act cover certain categories of public servants and the ‘other’. The structure of the section
does not permit the applicability of the rule of ejusdem generis, K. Veeraswami v. Union of India,
(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734.
Chapter III
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
6 [7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.—Any public servant who,—

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue

advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such
duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any
person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty
or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public
servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or
dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in
anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any
person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three
years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the
attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.—A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five
thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. ‘S’ is guilty of
an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section,—
(i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover
cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts
to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing
his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another
public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or
accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third
party.]
► Menace of corruption.—Corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress,
accelerates underserved ambitions, kills conscience, paralyses economic growth, corrodes sense
of civility and mars marrows of governance. Hence there is strong need to eradicate it, Niranjan
Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 187 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 737.
► Essential ingredients.—The essential ingredients of Section 7 are:
(i) That the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant;
(ii) That he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing
to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person, A.
Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587.
In corruption cases, prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of bribe amount, V.
Kannan v. State, (2009) 9 SCC 87.
Hari Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1977) 3 SCC 352, did not lay down any rule of
universal application. If trap, recovery of money and chemical test are established and prosecution
version relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, ratio in Hari Dev Sharma case
not applicable, State of A.P. v. M. Radha Krishna Murthy, (2009) 5 SCC 117.
Demand and voluntary acceptance of amount of illegal gratification are essential ingredients.
Mere recovery of currency notes not sufficient to constitute offence. Corroboration of testimony of
planted bribe-giver as to giving and taking of bribe by a shadow witness is not required in all
circumstances. Seeking corroboration in all circumstances of evidence of a witness forced to give
bribe may lead to absurd result. Bribe is not taken in public view and, therefore, there may not be
any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe. A person who was required by authorities
to hand over bribe money to accused in trap is not an accomplice. Hence, when his evidence is
found to be reliable, corroboration thereof is not necessary, C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010)
15 SCC 1.
Mere recovery of bribe money from possession of accused not sufficient to constitute offence.
Demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification must be established on facts by
prosecution. Presumption of acceptance of gratification as a motive or reward arises under Section
20. Court is obliged to apply the presumption in case of offence under Section 7. Presumption is
rebuttable. Accused explanation by way of rebuttal must be considered by court on basis of
preponderance of probability. When minimum sentence prescribed under statute has been awarded
by courts below, Supreme Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution to direct further reduction of sentence on ground of such unwarranted sympathy. Even
if amount is meagre, corruption deserves no sympathy or leniency, Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v.
State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 343.
► Taking bribe.—Section 7 (before substitution) Defence to the charge of—Member of Tender
Committee charged with demanding and accepting money from the party submitting tender—The
mere fact that they were not the final authority in the tender matter, held, could not negate the said
charge, State of A.P. v. C. Uma Maheshwara Rao, (2004) 4 SCC 399.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

► Illegal gratification—Section 7 (before substitution) Demand of money by Sessions Judge

(A-1) for showing official favour to PWs 1 and 2 who were accused in a case which was pending
trial in his court—Demand made by A-1 as well as receipt of illegal gratification by A-1's wife, on his
behalf, proved by the prosecution by creditable circumstantial evidence—Besides A-1 also found
entertaining PW 1 at his residence at odd hours at night—Held, in such circumstances High Court
was not justified in reversing conviction of A-1 merely on the basis of certain contradictions in
evidence of witnesses though they supported the prosecution case in all material particulars—
Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt, State of A.P. v. S. Janardhana Rao, (2005) 1
SCC 360.
Mere recovery of tainted money in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance, cannot be
said to be sufficient to convict the accused, N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., (2021) 3 SCC 687.
► Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.—Demand and receipt of money to
facilitate the passing of bills of the complainant—Conviction—Interference with, by High Court—
Propriety—High Court acquitting the accused on grounds that (i) no signature of the accused was
taken on seizure list; (ii) currency notes and pants of the accused, not sent to Forensic Laboratory
for chemical examination; (iii) the pyjamas given to the accused to wear after taking his pants, not
produced; (iv) when the money was allegedly accepted in right hand, how come it was kept in left
pocket and hand wash was taken of right hand only. (v) bills in question had already been released
prior to the alleged tender of the money; and (vi) the envelope containing the alleged money was not
produced—Held on facts, from the chain of circumstances the prosecution story fully
substantiated—Minor discrepancies/contractions, not fatal—Reasons given by High Court not
substantial to render the prosecution story improbable—Conviction and sentence by trial court
affirmed, State of W.B. v. Kailash Chandra Pandey, (2004) 12 SCC 29.
If demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant has been proved in a trap case then the
accused is liable for punishment under the Section 7, R. Sundararajan v. State, (2006) 12 SCC
749.
Every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not, would be
covered by Section 7 of the Act. But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a
demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, State v. A.
Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473.
Where it was held that when an amount is found to have been passed to the public servant then
the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. When it is
proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of money by the accused, there is no
further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive and it has
only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case, B. Noha v.
State of Kerala, (2006) 12 SCC 277.
In a case involving offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on
circumstances of case, it may be safe to accept prosecution version on basis of oral evidence of
complainant and official witnesses, even if trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be
independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence, which is consistent
with guilt of accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding
conviction, Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88.
► Offence under — When established.—Offence under Section 7 relating to public servants
taking bribe requires proof of: (a) demand of illegal gratification, and (b) acceptance thereof. Proof
of demand of bribe by public servant and its acceptance by him, both are a sine qua non for
establishing offence under Section 7, K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574.
7
[7-A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal
means or by exercise of personal influence.—Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts
to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage
as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by
exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such
public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years
and shall also be liable to fine.]
8 [8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant.—(1) Any person who gives or

promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention—

(i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; or
(ii) to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or
with fine or with both:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply where a person is
compelled to give such undue advantage:
Provided further that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law
enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the
date of giving such undue advantage:
Provided also that when the offence under this section has been committed by
commercial organisation, such commercial organisation shall be punishable with fine.
Illustration.—A person, ‘P’ gives a public servant, ‘S’ an amount of ten thousand
rupees to ensure that he is granted a license, over all the other bidders. ‘P’ is guilty of
an offence under this sub-section.
Explanation.—It shall be immaterial whether the person to whom an undue
advantage is given or promised to be given is the same person as the person who is to
perform, or has performed, the public duty concerned, and, it shall also be immaterial
whether such undue advantage is given or promised to be given by the person directly
or through a third party.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person, if that person, after
informing a law enforcement authority or investigating agency, gives or promises to
give any undue advantage to another person in order to assist such law enforcement
authority or investigating agency in its investigation of the offence alleged against the
later.]
► Applicability.—If Section 8 is analytically dissected then it would read as below:
(i) whoever
(ii) accepts or obtains gratification from any person
(iii) for inducing any public servant (by corrupt or illegal means)
(iv) to render or attempt to render any services or disservice (etc.)
(v) with any public servant (etc.)
If a public servant accepts gratification for inducing any public servant to do or to forbear to do
any official act, etc. then he would fall in the net of Sections 8 and 9, Parkash Singh Badal v. State
of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1.
► Interpretation/Construction.—The opening word of Sections 8 and 9 is “whoever”. The
expression is very wide and would also cover public servants accepting gratification as a motive or
reward for inducing any other public servant by corrupt or illegal means. Restricting the operation of
the expression by curtailing the ambit of Sections 8 and 9 and confining to private persons would not
reflect the actual legislative intention, Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1.
► Pecuniary gratification.—“Gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratification, Parkash
Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1.
9
[9. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation.—(1)
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a commercial organisation,
such organisation shall be punishable with fine, if any person associated with such
commercial organisation gives or promises to give any undue advantage to a public
servant intending—
(a) to obtain or retain business for such commercial organisation; or
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business for such

commercial organisation:
Provided that it shall be a defence for the commercial organisation to prove that it
had in place adequate procedures in compliance of such guidelines as may be
prescribed to prevent persons associated with it from undertaking such conduct.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is said to give or promise to give any
undue advantage to a public servant, if he is alleged to have committed the offence
under Section 8, whether or not such person has been prosecuted for such offence.
(3) For the purposes of Section 8 and this section,—
(a) “commercial organisation” means—
(i) a body which is incorporated in India and which carries on a business,
whether in India or outside India;
(ii) any other body which is incorporated outside India and which carries on a
business, or part of a business, in any part of India;
(iii) a partnership firm or any association of persons formed in India and which
carries on a business whether in India or outside India; or
(iv) any other partnership or association of persons which is formed outside
India and which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of
India;
(b) “business” includes a trade or profession or providing service;
(c) a person is said to be associated with the commercial organisation, if such
person performs services for or on behalf of the commercial organisation
irrespective of any promise to give or giving of any undue advantage which
constitutes an offence under sub-section (1).
Explanation 1.—The capacity in which the person performs services for or on behalf
of the commercial organisation shall not matter irrespective of whether such person is
employee or agent or subsidiary of such commercial organisation.
Explanation 2.—Whether or not the person is a person who performs services for or
on behalf of the commercial organisation is to be determined by reference to all the
relevant circumstances and not merely by reference to the nature of the relationship
between such person and the commercial organisation.
Explanation 3.—If the person is an employee of the commercial organisation, it
shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that such person is a person who has
performed services for or on behalf of the commercial organisation.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974), the offence under Sections 7-A, 8 and this section shall be cognizable.
(5) The Central Government shall, in consultation with the concerned stakeholders
including departments and with a view to preventing persons associated with
commercial organisations from bribing any person, being a public servant, prescribe
such guidelines as may be considered necessary which can be put in place for
compliance by such organisations.]
10 [10. Person in charge of commercial organisation to be guilty of offence.—Where

an offence under Section 9 is committed by a commercial organisation, and such

offence is proved in the court to have been committed with the consent or connivance
of any director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be of the commercial
organisation, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “director”, in relation to a firm
means a partner in the firm.]
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Public servant obtaining 11 [undue advantage], without consideration from

person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant.—
Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains 12 [* * *] or attempts to obtain for
himself, or for any other person, any 13 [undue advantage] without consideration, or for
a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to
have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business
transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection
with the 14 [official functions or public duty] of himself or of any public servant to
whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or
related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall
also be liable to fine.
15
[12. Punishment for abetment of offences.—Whoever abets any offence punishable
under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that
abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.]
► Benefit of doubt.—If there are discrepancies in prosecution case under Section 12 then the
accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250 :
(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 493.
► Sanction for prosecution.—Previous sanction under Section 19 is not necessary to take
cognizance under Section 12. Omission of Section 12 from Section 19, is deliberate which is also
apparent from fact that for convicting any person under Section 12, actual commission of offence
under Section 7 or Section 11 is of no consequence, State v. Parmeshwaran Subramani, (2009) 9
SCC 729.
► Abetment of or conspiracy for obtaining illegal gratification.—Absence of direct evidence
for demand and acceptance or conspiracy, held, irrelevant if circumstantial evidence unhesitatingly
points towards accessory accused (appellants in present case) as being part of design for obtaining
illegal gratification. Further held, once the circumstantial evidence establishes design for obtaining
illegal gratification, presumption under Section 20 would arise, Guruviah v. State, (2019) 8 SCC
396.
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—16 [(1) A public servant is said to
commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his
own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a
public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
Explanation 1.—A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself
illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during
the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot
satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2.—The expression “known sources of income” means income received
from any lawful sources.]
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 17 [four years] but which may
extend to 18 [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.
► Burden of proof.—Two postulates must combine together for crystalization into the offence,
namely, possession of property or resources disproportionate to the known sources of income of
public servant and the inability of the public servant to account for it/them. Burden of proof
regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the
second limb, P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1133.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pecuniary resources—Bank account—Joint deposit—Depositor first named not necessarily the

exclusive beneficial owner—Matter is principally guided by the terms of agreement. Once the
prosecution establishes the essential ingredients of the offence by the standard of criminal
evidence, held, the burden of proof shifts upon the defence to satisfactorily account for the
possession of the properties and pecuniary resources—Further held, the prosecution need not
disprove the existence of possible sources of the accused's income, State of Maharashtra v.
Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, 1987 Supp SCC 379, 385.
Charge of possession of assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to the known sources
of income of appellant public servant—Benami transactions alleged—Burden of proof lies on the
prosecution—Appellant claiming that value of certain items should be deducted from the value of the
alleged disproportionate assets—Claim substantiated by evidence of income tax and wealth tax
returns submitted about a year before the search conducted in the house of appellant by Anti-
Corruption Department—Burden of proof in disproving the claim of the appellant not satisfactorily
discharged by the prosecution—Appellant completed an unblemished service of over 25 years, M.
Krishna Reddy v. State Dy. Supdt. of Police, 1992 SCC (Cri) 801.
Charge against accused public servant of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known
source of income and possession of pecuniary resources of property for which he could not give
satisfactory account—Appeal against conviction—Accused showing certain amounts under various
heads which, according to him ought to have been deducted from total value of his assets and on
that basis he was entitled to acquittal—On reappreciation of evidence held, prosecution failed to
satisfactorily establish the charge—Hence appellant entitled to be acquitted, P. Satyanarayan Murty
v. State of A.P., (1992) 4 SCC 39 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 795.
Accused, Excise Inspector caught in trap while accepting bribe as demanded—Defence plea
that complainant was entrusting him the amount as arrears of rental relating to sale of arrack, the
Bank having closed meanwhile—Held, plea not sustainable as accused had no authority or right
under the Excise Rules to accept the arrears of rental—Accused failed to discharge the onus under
Section 4 to prove his innocence, B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 323 :
1993 SCC (Cri) 117.
In cases involving Section 13(1)(e) (prior to substitution) the onus is on the accused to prove
that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression
“known sources of income” is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused.
The Explanation to Section 13(1) (prior to substitution) provides that for the purposes of the section,
“known sources of income” means income derived from any lawful source and such receipt has
been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being
applicable to a public servant. How the assets were acquired and from what source of income is
within the special knowledge of the accused, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry,
(2005) 10 SCC 471 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1605.
Presence of phenolphthalein powder on accused's hand and find of currency notes pursuant to
trap laid not explained by defence—Held, interference with High Court's order of conviction not
called for, Rup Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 206 : (1991) SCC (Cri) 548.
► Interpretation/Construction.—The expression “known sources of income” used in Section
13(1) (e) (prior to substitution), held, does not mean sources known to the accused, but sources
known to the prosecution. The burden is on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as
to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of
acceptance. Held, though “income” is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not
partake the character of income. Whatever a public servant gets from his service and by way of
regular receipts from (a) his property, or (b) his investment, held, will be his income, State of M.P.
v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 353.
The words “pecuniary advantage” (prior to substitution) are of wide amplitude but even so in the
context of Section 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 obtaining goods on credit cannot be held to amount to
obtaining pecuniary advantage. If there is an agreement between the officer and the trader that the
officer is not expected to pay for the goods then there is no doubt that this would amount to
obtaining pecuniary advantage, but if there is no such agreement and the officer does not pay it
cannot be said that he had obtained any pecuniary advantage. It cannot be said that an officer, if he
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 19 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

obtains goods on credit, even if he does not intend to pay, is obtaining a valuable thing without
consideration. The case may be different if it is proved that there was an agreement with the trader
that the trader would not demand the money and the officer would not pay, and the bill and the
reminders sent would be merely a formality, Delhi Administration v. S.N. Khosla, (1971) 1 SCC
872 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 370.
As per the Explanation the “known sources of income” of the public servant, for the purpose of
satisfying the court, should be “any lawful source”. Besides being the lawful source the Explanation
further enjoins that receipt of such income should have been intimated by the public servant in
accordance with the provisions of any law applicable to such public servant at the relevant time. So
a public servant cannot now escape from the tentacles of Section 13(1) (e) (prior to substitution) of
the PC Act by showing other legally forbidden source, albeit such source are outside the purview of
clauses (a) to (d) of the sub-section, P. Nallammal v. State, (1999) 6 SCC 559 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
1133.
Words ‘criminal misconduct’ in sub-section (2) refer to the offences mentioned in sub-section
(1)—Alleged offence of misappropriation of gold biscuits by police officer recovered by him from
certain persons, hence punishable, State of U.P. v. Surinder Pal Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 470 : 1989
SCC (Cri) 402.
Sections 5 and 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 held (per majority : Verma, J., contra),
applicable to Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court including Chief Justice of India. Expression
“for which public servant cannot satisfactorily account”—Does not indicate that investigating officer
is obliged to afford any opportunity to the public servant to explain the alleged disproportionality of
his assets and to furnish his averments in the charge-sheet—Charge-sheet must be in compliance
with Section 173(2) CrPC, K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri)
734.
The term “income” by itself, is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is
received, is income. But, however wide the import and connotation of the term “income” may be, it
is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise,
or property, or investment, and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular
revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term “income”. Therefore, it
can be said that, though “income” is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not
partake the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets from his service,
will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which conceivably are income qua the public
servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from
windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt
from the “known sources of income” of a public servant, State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta,
(2004) 1 SCC 691 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 353.
► Interference by Court.—Charge against Assistant Iron and Steel Controller for entering into
criminal conspiracy with co-accused manufacturers to give pecuniary advantage by corrupt or
illegal means, and by abuse of his powers by releasing huge quantities of stainless steel in favour of
the manufacturers—Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence—Circumstances not
necessarily leading to an interface or at least presumption that the irregularities amounted to
obtaining a benefit in favour of the manufacturers by corrupt or illegal means—Dishonest intention
not inferable from facts—Conviction recorded by trial court reversed by High Court—View taken by
High Court reasonable and sound—Supreme Court's interference not called for, State (Delhi
Admn.) v. N.S. Giani, (1990) 3 SCC 325 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 16.
Conviction under, on charge of taking bribe of Rs 100—No independent evidence showing that
the appellant demanded the bribe money from the complainant—Bribe money recovered from
drawer of accused-appellant by raiding party—No evidence showing that money was placed in the
drawer by complainant at the asking of the appellant—Hand of the appellant not turning pink when
put in chemical solution—Held, conviction not sustainable, Ayyasami v. State of T.N., (1992) 1 SCC
304 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 182.
Prosecution of Head Constable and Constable on charge of bribery—Matter allegedly settled
between Head Constable and complainant at former's house—Constable not a party to the
settlement—Some days later a trap laid and when Head Constable avoided to take money it was
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 20 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

entrusted to Constable to be passed on to Head Constable—Held, on facts and in circumstances of

case conviction of Head Constable not sustainable—Constable also could not be convicted unless it
could be shown that he was a party to the settlement arrived at between Head Constable and
complainant—Conviction of both accused set aside, Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje v. State of
Maharashtra, (1990) 1 SCC 299 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 104.
Conviction on charge of taking bribe of Rs 15 for expediting issue of a certificate—Demand of
bribe and acceptance thereof as a motive or reward for doing an official act or showing favour in
exercise of official function, held, not clinchingly proved by trap evidence—High Court rightly
reserved trial court's order of conviction—Supreme Court's interference not called for, State of
Gujarat v. Hari Bhai Keshavbhai Patel, 1990 Supp SCC 606 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 216.
► Maximum sentence.— In terms of Section 13(2) [as amended by Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Act, 2013 for offence, minimum sentence that can be imposed has been increased from 1 to 4
years, and maximum sentence from 7 to 10 years. The submission that since petitioner was not
covered by 2013 Act, maximum sentence that could be imposed on him was 7 years is liable to be
rejected since though petitioner is not within purview of 2013 Act, but he can certainly be
prosecuted and punished under Section 13(1), PC Act, Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam,
(2017) 15 SCC 67.
► Sources of income of legislators and their associates.—Increase in assets of legislators
or their associates disproportionate to their known sources of income is constitutionally
impermissible conduct is prosecutable as an offence under PC Act, 1988 and as held herein,
amounts to “undue influence” under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Assets and sources of income of legislators require continuous monitoring to maintain purity of
electoral process and integrity of democratic structure. Constitutional obligation of State is to ensure
that there is no concentration of wealth in few hands to common detriment of others. Hence,
permanent institutional mechanism dedicated to task which would periodically collect data of
legislators and their associates, and place it in public domain to enable voters to make informed
choice, directed to be established, Lok Prahari v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 699.
► Pre-trial confiscation of property.—If a person acquires property by means which are not
legally approved, the State would be perfectly justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of
such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public interest in ensuring that persons who cannot establish that
they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them, do not enjoy such wealth. Such a
deprivation would certainly be consistent with the requirement of Articles 300-A and 14 of the
Constitution which prevent the State from arbitrarily depriving a person of his property, Yogendra
Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 1.
► Validity of Section 6-A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. — Section 6-A, Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 does not satisfy the well-settled tests in context of Article 14
of Constitution and is not capable of severance for the purposes of Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii).
Hence, Section 6-A (as inserted. by Act 45 of 2003), held invalid, Subramanian Swamy v. CBI,
(2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42.
► Validity of sanction for prosecution.—Consideration of validity of sanction at stage of
discharge, in revision by High Court, held, erroneous and conclusion reached unsustainable.
Absence of sanction no doubt can be agitated at the threshold, but invalidity of sanction can be
considered only during trial, CBI v. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal, (2020) 17 SCC 664.
► Disproportionate assets.—In order to establish that a public servant is in possession of
pecuniary resources and property, disproportionate to his known sources of income, it is not
imperative that the period of reckoning be spread out for the entire stretch of anterior service of the
public servant. There can be no general rule or criterion, valid for all cases, in the regard to the
choice of the period for which accounts are taken to establish criminal misconduct. It is for the
prosecution of choose what, according to it, is the period which having regard to the acquisitive
activities of the public servant in amassing wealth, characterise and isolate that period for special
scrutiny, State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, 1987 Supp SCC 379, 384, 385.
Income tax orders and returns, no doubt are admissible but these are not conclusive proof as to
whether assets or income concerned are from lawful source(s) as contemplated under Section 13
(1)(e) expln., PC Act. Furthermore, omission on part of prosecution to question admissibility of
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 21 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

income tax orders/returns would not endow contents thereof with probative efficacy. Income tax
assessment proceedings are directed only to quantity taxable income and orders passed therein do
no authenticate source as lawful and thus are not relevant for proving a charge under Section 13(1)
(e), PC Act. Property in name of assessee cannot be a ground to believe that it actually belongs to
asesseee. Otherwise corrupt public servants would amass wealth in names of known persons and
pay income tax and then escape from law. Even otherwise, findings in one set of proceedings
cannot be held to be binding on another set of proceedings and both have to be decided on basis of
evidence adduced therein, State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha, (2017) 6 SCC 263 : (2017) 2 SCC
(L&S) 179 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 1.
► Criminal misconduct by public servant.—As accused abused her position as public
servant entrusted with management and control of Noida (modern industrial city), committing gross
irregularities in allotment and conversion of land in Noida itself, for herself and her daughters, she
is, held, guilty of obtaining valuable thing for herself and her daughters by abusing her position as a
public servant. Appellant not only gained pecuniary advantage for herself by manipulating rules of
Noida Authority, but also caused grave loss to Noida Authority. Her conviction is confirmed, Neeraj
Yadav v. CBI, (2017) 8 SCC 757 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 515.
Persons guilty of grave offences under IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act during service
period cannot get immunity from prosecution even after retirement, State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath,
1989 SCC (Cri) 128.
► Demand and acceptance.—Fact of demand and acceptance of bribe established beyond
doubt—Then the alleged enmity between the accused and person paying the bribe, even if true,
held, immaterial, B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 323 : 1993 SCC (Cri)
117.
It is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of
probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not
because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him throws
doubt on the prosecution case and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have established
the charge beyond reasonable doubt, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 :
1976 SCC (Cri) 566.
When once the accused comes into possession of the tainted money the only inference is that
he accepted the same and thus ‘obtained the pecuniary advantage’, M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of
Maharashtra, (1995) 3 SCC 567 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 546.
Where the facts stated in the General Diary entry recorded on the basis of a telephonic
information were (i) that the respondent was a corrupt official and was in the habit of accepting
illegal gratification (bribe), (ii) that he had demanded and accepted case to the tune of rupees one
lakh approximately, and (iii) that he would be carrying with him the said amount while going to a
particular place by a particular mode on a particular date, held, a cognizable offence under Section
13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was clearly made out. Hence the SP, CBI rightly
proceeded to intercept the respondent and investigate the case, Supdt. of Police v. Tapan Kr.
Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175.
Burden lies on prosecution to prove that the public servant possesses pecuniary resources or
property disproportionate to his known sources of income—Limited onus then shifts on the public
servant to explain to the satisfaction of the court the disproportionality of the assets possessed by
him—Onus can be discharged by balance of probabilities (Per Shetty and Venkatachaliah, JJ.), K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734.
► Trial.—Bribe-giver, who was a private person, held, can be tried along with public servant,
State of U.P. v. Udai Narayan, (1999) 8 SCC 741; Udai Narayan v. State of U.P., (1999) 39 ACC
202 (All).
► Value of assets.—Acceptance of bribe—Appellant held in a trap—Recovery of tainted
money not disputed by appellant—But prosecution case that the amount was recovered from
appellant disputed on the plea that the amount had been thrusted and the case was fabricated—
Further explanation given by appellant that as he was using a red pen due to which his hands got
stained, when his hands were put into water the same turned pink—Held, explanation on the face of
it artificial—No interference called for with the conviction recorded by High Court as it took into
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 22 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

consideration all the circumstances and evidence and on the basis of cogent and convincing
reasons accepted the prosecution case and rejected the reasons given by trial court in acquitting
the appellant as being highly unsound, Ajit Kumar Vasantlal Zaveri v. State of Gujarat, 1993 Supp
(1) SCC 482 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 226.
In absence of positive grounds for doing otherwise, the value of a particular asset determined in
the earlier proceedings, held, could not be enhanced in the subsequent proceedings, M. Krishna v.
State of Karnataka, (1999) 3 SCC 247 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 397.
Charge against Forester of asking complainant Forest Guard to collect mamools (bribe money)
and pay the same to him as a motive or reward for allowing the farmers/ryots to graze their cattle in
the forest area—No attempt made by prosecution to secure any witness among ryots from the
village to prove the factum of collection of the alleged mamools—In absence of any acceptable
evidence about demand of bribe, held, charge not proved—In such circumstances the explanation
offered by the appellant cannot be simply thrown away as unworthy of acceptance, S.V. Kameswar
Rao v. State, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 377 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 694.
► Statement of accused.—Fraudulent misappropriation of money by not disbursing the same
to the staff by Cashier-cum-Accountant—Accused-appellant stating that he did not receive any cash
but he only under the instructions of PW 5 made the entries in cash book as well as in bill book and
showed the expenditure of the amount in question and debited the grand total—Apart from the
statement of the accused no other supporting material found on record—PW 5 denying his
involvement—Held, statement not acceptable, Balaram Swain v. State of Orissa, 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 510 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 707.
► Trap case.—Veracity of prosecution story regarding—Should be tested having regard to
normal human behaviour and preponderance of probabilities—Complainant's conduct of straightway
taking steps for arranging a trap after very first visit of the accused Vigilance Sub-Inspector in his
house and even without knowing his name is a circumstance throwing doubt on prosecution story—
Accused's conduct of visiting complainant's house to collect bribe money about an hour before the
appointed time and just after arrival of the trap party without being cautious of the suspicious
surroundings also raising doubts—Happening of the incident of accepting bribe in a small room in
complainant's house without being apprehensive of presence of the trap party in the adjoining room
separated only by a curtain also doubtful as in such a situation a sixth sense works so as to detect
presence of another in such close surroundings—In the circumstances held, prosecution story
doubtful—Accused entitled to the benefit of doubt, Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., 1990 Supp
SCC 125 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 627.
► Quantum of sentence.—Prior to commencement of 1988 Act accused charged under
Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of 1947 Act—Trial actually commenced after commencement
of 1988 Act and then the accused was charged and convicted under Section 13(d)(i) (prior to
substitution), (ii) read with Sections 13(2) and 7 of 1988 Act—Gravamen of the charges under both
the Acts same in substance—No prejudice caused to the accused—Held, accused cannot be
allowed to raise objection for the first time in Supreme Court. Sentence—Offence taking place about
14 years back—Accused undergoing agony of criminal proceedings and also losing his job—
Accused having a large family to support and became sick and infirm—Sentence reduced to the
period already undergone, M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 3 SCC 567 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 546.
Special reasons for sentence of less than one year's imprisonment—Period of 23 years elapsed
since the occurrence during which accused-appellants have grown old and some also died—
Appellants also undergone the ordeal of trial for a number of years and conviction hanging on their
heads for all these years—Appellants also lost their jobs and they have large families dependent
upon them—Held, these circumstances warrant a lesser sentence—Appellants having been in jail for
some time, their sentences reduced to the period already undergone—Sentence of fine with default
clause, however, confirmed, D. Srinivasan v. Delhi Special Police Establishment, 1993 SCC (Cri)
792.
Mitigating circumstances—Accused held in a trap while taking bribe of Rs 30 only—High Court
reversing order of acquittal—Occurrence took place in 1976—Accused undergone agony of trial
which took a long time—Accused lost his job and having a family to support—After such a long
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 23 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lapse of time, held, it is not a fit case to send the accused back to jail particularly having regard to
the amount of bribe involved being Rs 30 only—Under these circumstances while confirming the
conviction sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone—But sentence of
fine with default clause confirmed, Ajit Kumar Vasantlal Zaveri v. State of Gujarat, 1993 Supp (1)
SCC 482 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 226.
Mitigating circumstances—Trial court awarding less than minimum statutory sentence—Accused
paying entire amount of tax collected for Panchayat—Accused a heart patient and sole bread-
winner for family consisting of mother, wife and two sons studying in school—Sentence further
reduced by Supreme Court to period already undergone—Penology, P.D. Devasay Kutty v. State
of Kerala, 1990 Supp SCC 144 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 637.
The employee when convicted on a criminal charge of corruption, misappropriation or of such
similar acts and the department passes an order of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement and
when that order is challenged, the court or tribunal before which the said order is challenged, issues
an interim order directing that such a government servant be continued in service it would seriously
impair the integrity and efficiency of public service and demoralise other honest government
servants. When the government servant prefers an appeal against the conviction under Prevention
of Corruption Act and the appellate court suspends the sentence of imprisonment, it does not
necessitate the government servant being continued under suspension nor does it preclude the
disciplinary authority from exercising its discretion under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article
311(2) of the Constitution of Rule 25(i) or the A.P. Central Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, to impose
any penalty which deems fit include dismissal from service, Ch. Gopala Rao v. Southern Power
Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., (2009) 1 AP LJ 309 (HC).
► Leading.—Accepting bribe of Rs 25—Accused held in a trap—Prosecution evidence
sufficient to confirm conviction—But having regard to the circumstances that accused lost his job 16
years ago, undergone trial for number of years, and still at the age of 65 years he could not receive
pension though he has a large family to maintain, his sentence of one year's RI reduced to 15 days
RI but sentence of fine of Rs 250 confirmed, T.M. Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (1) SCC
465 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 262.
Accused, a bank employee, drawing a sum of Rs 8400 by utilising signed cheque leaves of co-
accused—Sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs 1000, held, inadequate—
However, in view of long lapse of time no interference by Supreme Court called for—Criminal trial—
Sentence—Constitution of India, Article 136, State of Karnataka v. M. Obanna, 1989 Supp (2) SCC
199 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 49.
► Ingredients.—To constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(c) (prior to substitution), it is
necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused has dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriated any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any
other person to do so or converts that property for his own use. The entrustment of the property or
the control of the property is a necessary ingredient of Section 13(1)(c) (prior to substitution). For
convicting a person under the provisions of Sections 13(1)(d) (prior to substitution) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there must be evidence on record that the accused has
obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt
or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtained for himself, or for any
person, any valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, K.R.
Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631.
It is clear from the bare perusal of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) (prior to substitution) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act that in order to make out an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) (prior to
substitution), the prosecution must establish that the public servant has abused his position as a
public servant which is not necessary to make out the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (prior to
substitution). The material on record prima facie establishes that the petitioner has committed an
offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (prior to substitution) which is punishable under Section 13(2) of
the Act, Krishnanath Gopal Matodkar v. State, (2009) 3 Mah LJ 821.
To attract provisions of Section 13(1)(d) (prior to substitution) a public servant should obtain for
himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage:
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, or
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 24 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, or

(iii) without any public interest,
R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha, (2004) 2 SCC 9 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 377.
Essential ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) (prior to substitution) are:
(i) That he should have been a public servant;
(ii) That he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as
such public servant, and
(iii) That he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for
any other person.
The primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) (prior to substitution) of the Act is
proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In
the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) (prior to substitution) cannot be held to be
established, A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587.
► CBI investigation.—State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order
and preservation of peace and harmony in the society. When serious allegations are made against
a former Minister of the State, save and except the cases of political revenge amounting to malice,
the State may consider handing over of investigation to CBI which has acquired specialisation in
such cases, Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441.
► Preliminary enquiry — Permissibility.—Enquiry at pre-FIR stage, held, not only permissible
but desirable. However, such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered. However, such
enquiry cannot be a fishing or roving enquiry, Charansingh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC
469.
19
[14. Punishment for habitual offender.—Whoever convicted of an offence under
this Act subsequently commits an offence punishable under this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.]
15. Punishment for attempt.—Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred to in
20 [clause (a)] of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be punishable with imprisonment

for a term 21 [which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five
years] and with fine.
16. Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine.—Where a sentence of fine
is imposed under 22 [Section 7 or Section 8 or Section 9 or Section 10 or Section 11 or
sub-section (2) of Section 13 or Section 14 or Section 15], the court in fixing the
amount of the fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the
property, if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or
where the conviction is for an offence referred to in 23 [clause (b)] of sub-section (1) of
Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the
accused person is unable to account satisfactorily.
► Duty of NHAI.—A highway authority has an absolute duty to ensure the safety of highway
users. However, each case has to be considered to find out whether the authority had taken
reasonable steps to keep it in good repair after being notified about obstruction, NHAI v. Aam
Aadmi Lokmanch, (2021) 11 SCC 566.
Chapter IV
INVESTIGATION INTO CASES UNDER THE ACT
17. Persons authorised to investigate.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,—
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of
Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 25 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of

Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant
Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of
equivalent rank,
shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a
Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make
any arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is
authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may
also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a
warrant:
Provided further that an offence referred to in 24 [clause (b) of sub-section (1)] of
Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the
rank of a Superintendent of Police.
► Illegal Investigation.—Illegality in investigation, unless shown to have brought about
miscarriage of justice, held, does not vitiate the result of the trial, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh,
(2000) 5 SCC 88 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 886.
► Defective investigation.—Order for investigation passed under second proviso to Section 17
contained in a typed proforma, held, not by itself indicative of non-application of mind or having
been passed in a mechanical and casual manner, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 886.
► Validity of investigation.—Where Superintendent of CBI issued order authorising an
Inspector of CBI to investigate offences under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) (prior to
substitution) against respondent, held, investigation conducted by the Inspector valid. It is not
necessary in such case that an officer of the rank of Dy. Supdt. Of Police should conduct the
investigation. Hence investigation was not liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, State v. S.
Bangarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 369 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 152; S. Bangarappa v. State by CBI, (2000) 3
Kant LJ 432, reversed.
► Persons authorized to investigate.—Investigation by police officers of Inspector rank is
only an irregularity. Unless such irregularity resulted in causing prejudice, conviction will not be
vitiated and bad in law, Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88.
► Defect or irregularity in investigation.—Defect or irregularity in investigation however
serious, would have no direct bearing on competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial.
Where cognizance of case has already been taken and case has proceeded to termination,
invalidity of precedent investigation does not vitiate result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been
caused thereby, Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88.
25 [17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to
recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official
functions or duties.—(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or
investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant
under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or
decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties,
without the previous approval—
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence
was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the
Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence
was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State,
of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 26 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a
person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue
advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this
section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.]
STATE AMENDMENTS
UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR.—In its application to the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir, after Section 17-A, insert the following sections, namely:—
“17-B. Establishment of Anti-Corruption Bureau for the Union territory of
Jammu and Kashmir.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
Government of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir shall, by notification in the
Official Gazette, establish a Bureau for investigation of offences under this Act under
the name of ‘Anti-Corruption Bureau’.
(2) The Bureau shall consist of the Director and such other officers and staff
subordinate to him as the Government of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir may
from time to time think fit to appoint.
(3) The qualification of officers (other than the Director) shall be such as may be
prescribed by the Government of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir:
Provided that till qualification of officers (other than the Director) is prescribed by
the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the rules notified by the
Government in this regard under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006
(now repealed) shall continue to govern the qualification of such officers.
(4) The Director and the officers and staff subordinate to him shall hold office for
such term and on such conditions as the Government of Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir may from time to time determine.
Explanation—The Anti-Corruption Bureau established under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006 (now repealed) shall deemed to be Anti-Corruption
Bureau established under the provisions of this Act, as if the same has been
established under the provisions of this Act and any reference to the Anti-Corruption
Bureau in any law, order, notification or rules in force in the Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir shall be construed to mean the Anti-Corruption Bureau
established under the provisions of this Act.
17-C. Powers of attachment of property.—(1) If an officer (not below the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police) of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, investigating an
offence committed under this Act, has reason to believe that any property in relation
to which an investigation is being conducted has been acquired by resorting to such
acts of omission and commission which constitute an offence of ‘criminal
misconduct’ as defined under Section 5, he shall, with the prior approval in writing
of the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, make an order seizing such property
and, where it is not practicable to seize such property, make an order of attachment
directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except
with the prior permission of the officer making such order or of the Designated
Authority to be notified by the Government of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir
before whom the properties seized or attached are produced and a copy of such
order shall be served on the person concerned:
Provided that the Investigating Officer may, at any stage of investigation after
registration of F.I.R. in respect of any case under the Act where he has reason to
believe that such property is likely to be transferred or otherwise dealt with to defeat
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 27 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the prosecution of the case direct that such property shall not be transferred or dealt
with for such period, not exceeding ninety days, as may be specified in the order
except with the prior approval of the Designated Authority.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “attachment” shall include
temporarily assuming the custody, possession and/or control of such property].
(2) The Investigating officer shall inform the Designated Authority, within forty
eight hours, of the seizure or attachment of such property together with a report of
the circumstances occasioning the seizure or attachment of such property, as the
case may be.
(3) It shall be open to the Designated Authority before whom the seized or
attached properties are produced either to confirm or revoke the order of seizure or
attachment so issued within [thirty days]:
Provided that an opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the Investigating
Officer and the person whose property is being attached or seized before making any
order under this sub-section:
Provided further that till disposal of the case the Designated Authority shall
ensure the safety and protection of such property.
(4) In the case of immovable property attached by the Investigating Officer, it
shall be deemed to have been produced before the Designated Authority, when the
Investigating Officer notifies his report and places it at the disposal of the
Designated Authority.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order under the proviso to sub-section (1) may
apply to the Designated Authority for grant of permission to transfer or otherwise
deal with such property.
(6) The Designated Authority may either grant, or refuse to grant, the permission
to the applicant.
(7) The Designated Authority, acting under the provisions of this Act, shall have
all the powers of a civil court required for making a full and fair enquiry into the
matter before it.
17-D. Appeal against the order of Designated Authority.—(1) Any person
aggrieved by an order made by the Designated Authority under sub-section (3) or
sub-section (5) of Section 17-C may prefer an appeal, within one month from the
date of receipt of the order, to the Special Judge and the Special Court may either
confirm the order of attachment of property or seizure so made or revoke such order
and release the property or pass such order as it may deem just and proper within a
period of sixty days.
(2) Where any property is seized or attached under Section 17-C and the Special
Court is satisfied about such seizure or attachment, it may order forfeiture of such
property, whether or not the person from whose possession it is seized or attached is
prosecuted in the Special Court for an offence under this Act.
(3) It shall be competent for the Special Court to make an order in respect of
property seized or attached,—
(a) directing it to be sold if it is a perishable property and the provisions of Section
459 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall, as nearly as may
be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale;
(b) nominating any officer of the Government, in the case of any other property, to
perform the function of the Administrator of such property subject to such
conditions as may be specified by the Special Court.
17-E. Issue of show-cause notice before forfeiture of the property.—No
order under sub-section (2) of Section 17-D shall be made by the Special Court—
(a) unless the person holding or in possession of such property is given a notice in
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 28 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to forfeit such

property and such person is given an opportunity of making a representation in
writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the
grounds of forfeiture and is also given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
the matter;
(b) if the person holding or in possession of such property establishes that he is a
bona fide transferee of such property for value without knowing that such
property has been so acquired.
17-F. Appeal.—(1) Any person aggrieved by order of the Special Court under
Section 17-D may within one month from the date of the receipt of such order,
appeal to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
(2) Where any order under Section 17-D is modified or annulled by the High Court
or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the provisions of this
Act, the person against whom an order of the special court has been made is
acquitted, such property shall be returned to him and in either case if it is not
possible for any reason to return the forfeited property, such person shall be paid the
price therefor as if the property had been sold to the Government with reasonable
interest calculated from the date of seizure of the property and such price shall be
determined in the manner prescribed.
17-G. Order of forfeiture not to interfere with other punishments.—The
order of forfeiture made under this Act by the Special Court, shall not prevent the
infliction of any other punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable
under this Act.” [Vide : S.O. 1123(E), dt. 18-3-2020 (w.e.f. 18-3-2020).]
18. Power to inspect bankers' books.—If from information received or otherwise, a
police officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered to investigate under Section 17 and considers that for the purpose of
investigation or inquiry into such offence, it is necessary to inspect any bankers'
books, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in
force, he may inspect any bankers' books insofar as they relate to the accounts of the
persons suspected to have committed that offence or of any other person suspected to
be holding money on behalf of such person, and take or cause to be taken certified
copies of the relevant entries therefrom, and the bank concerned shall be bound to
assist the police officer in the exercise of his powers under this section:
Provided that no power under this section in relation to the accounts of any person
shall be exercised by a police officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police,
unless he is specially authorised in this behalf by a police officer of or above the rank
of a Superintendent of Police.
Explanation.—In this section, the expressions “bank” and “bankers' books” shall
have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Bankers' Books Evidence Act,
1891 (18 of 1891).
Chapter IV-A
ATTACHMENT AND FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
26
[18-A. Provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to
attachment under this Act.—(1) Save as otherwise provided under the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the provisions of the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of 1944) shall, as far as may be, apply to the
attachment, administration of attached property and execution of order of attachment
or confiscation of money or property procured by means of an offence under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of 1944) shall have effect, subject to the modification that
the references to “District Judge” shall be construed as references to “Special Judge”.]
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 29 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter V
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1) No court shall take cognizance
of an offence punishable under 27 [Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have been
committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction 28 [save as otherwise
provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013],—
(a) in the case of a person 29 [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 and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person 30 [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 and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him
from his office.
31 [Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or

an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the

appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous
sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of
the offences specified in this sub-section, unless—
(i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged
offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and
(ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain
the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding:
Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police
officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the
appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute
a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned
public servant:
Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall,
after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant
under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a
period of three months from the date of its receipt:
Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for
prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be
recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month:
Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for
prosecution of a public servant, prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary.
Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression “public servant”
includes such person—
(a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have
been committed; or
(b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have
been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the
offence is alleged to have been committed.]
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous
sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government
or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that
Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 30 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974),—
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or
altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the
absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required
under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice
has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error,
omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is
satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice;
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and
no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory
order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error,
omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of
justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should
have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement
that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with
the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.
STATE AMENDMENTS
Uttar Pradesh.—In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Section 19, in
sub-section (1), after clause (c), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
“(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c), the State Government
may, where it considers necessary so to do, require the authority referred to in clause
(c), to give previous sanction within the period specified in this behalf and if the said
authority fails to give the previous sanction within such period, the previous sanction
may be given by the State Government.
Explanation.—(1) For the purpose of this clause “authority” does not include any
authority under the control of the Central Government.
(2) For removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the power of the State
Government under this clause may be exercised also in a case where the authority
referred to in clause (c) has earlier refused to give the previous sanction.” [Vide U.P.
Act 4 of 1991, Section 2 (w.e.f. 1-9-1990)].
► Applicability.—Section 19 applies to High Courts, Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan, (2001) 8 SCC 607; ITO v. M.K. Mohd. Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430 : (1969) 2 SCR 65,
distinguished.
► Interpretation/Construction.—Expression “any other ground” in Section 19(3)(c), refers to
and relates to all grounds that are available in proceedings under the Act other than grounds which
relate to sanction granted by the authority. No warrant to add words not found in Section 19(3)(c),
namely, that these grounds should be relatable to sanction only, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency
(P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299.
► Nature and scope.—Section 19 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offence
punishable under the provisions specified therein except with the previous sanction by the
authorities specified therein. Grant of proper sanction by a competent authority is a sine qua non
for taking cognizance of the offence. Ordinarily, the question as to whether a proper sanction has
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 31 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is a matter which should be dealt with
at the stage of taking cognizance. But, even if a cognizance of the offence is taken erroneously and
the same comes to the court's notice at a later stage a finding to that effect is permissible. Even
such a plea can be taken for the first time before an appellate court, State of Karanataka v. C.
Nagarajaswamy, (2005) 8 SCC 370.
► Sanction for prosecution.— IRS officer cadre controlling authority is Finance Minister of
India and as such sanction granted by him was valid sanction. Further held, fact that in
administrative notings different authorities like CVC, DoPT had opined differently, is inconsequential
since business of State being complicated, it has necessary to be conducted through agency of
large number of officials and authorities, Vivek Batra v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 69 : (2017) 1
SCC (L&S) 84 : (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 219.
A public servant who committed an offence mentioned in the Act, while he was a public servant,
can be prosecuted with the sanction contemplated in Section 19 of the Act if he continues to be a
public servant when the court takes cognizance of the offence. But if he ceases to be a public
servant by that time, the court can take cognizance of the offence without any such sanction,
Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1455.
Under Section 19 (prior to substitution) of the Act, no court can take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant,
except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the person concerned. In this
case the Secretary (Vigilance) was authorised to grant sanction only on 23-4-1994. The sanction
accorded by the said authority prior to the said date, held, was without jurisdiction. Hence,
proceedings quashed due to non-compliance with Section 19, P.A. Mohandas v. State of Kerala,
(2003) 9 SCC 504.
Sanction for prosecution of Judge of Supreme Court or High Court—Not required after he
ceases to hold the office even if the offence relates to the period when he was holding the office—
(Per Verma, J.), the Judge being a constitutional functionary to whom Section 6 itself is
inapplicable, sanction for his prosecution is not required simply because Section 6 is not attracted.
President as the authority competent to remove Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts and
hence sanctioning authority under—Held, (per Ray, Shetty and Venkatachaliah, JJ.) so that it may
not result in interference of Executive with Judiciary, criminal case against the Judge must be
registered and decision regarding grant of sanction for prosecution of the Judges must be taken by
the President in consultation and in accordance with advice rendered by CJI and the decision
regarding grant of sanction for prosecution of the CJI himself, must be taken by the President in
consultation with the other Judges of the Supreme Court—Directions issued by Supreme Court
accordingly, K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734.
Sanction for prosecution of Ministers after resignation for offences committed during tenure as
Ministers, held, not required, M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P., (2004) 8 SCC
788. See also State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta, (2004) 2 SCC 349; State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan
Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752; Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 437; Kalicharan
Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 :
1984 SCC (Cri) 172; S.A. Venkataraman v. State, 1958 SCR 1040; K. Veeraswami v. Union of
India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734.
Prosecution for criminal misconduct alleged to have been committed by the accused persons
during the period they were holding high political offices within the meaning of Section 5(1), Special
Courts Act r/w Rule 2(1)(f). Held, sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, is not required, Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa, (1995) 2 SCC 437 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 382.
See also R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172.
Grant of sanction for prosecution by Governor against aid and advice of Council of Ministers,
reiterated, following M.P. Special Police Establishment, (2004) 8 SCC 788, is permissible. This is
one of the cases where Governor could act despite the advice of the Council of Ministers, on the
ground of propriety, Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1.
On date of taking cognizance of alleged offence, office which accused held, relevant for
determining necessity of sanction. If on that date he ceased to hold the office which he had held as
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 32 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

public servant at time of commission of alleged offence, sanction is not required to be obtained for
his prosecution even if he thereafter continued to be a public servant in a different capacity/office,
L.Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 9 SCC 598 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 837 : (2016) 3
SCC (Cri) 696.
► Bar against double conviction.—Article 20 of the Constitution or Section 300 CrPC bar
against double conviction for same offence, cannot operate as a bar for a second or even third
proper sanction if trial was vitiated due to absence of valid sanction by competent authority. If trial
was vitiated due to absence of valid sanction, court trying it will lack jurisdiction for such trial and
entire trial proceedings would be invalid and non est in law. If entire trial is no est in law, there can
be no bar to fresh trial and conviction after obtaining proper sanction under Section 19(1) of PC
Act, 1988, Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 360.
► Power to give sanction.—It is not necessary that the authority competent to give sanction
for prosecution or the authority competent to remove the public servant should be vertically superior
in the hierarchy in which the office of the public servant exists. There is no such requirement under
Section 6. The power to give sanction for prosecution can be conferred on any authority. Such
authority may be of the department in which the public servant is working or an outside authority. All
that is required is that the authority must be in a position to appreciate the material collected against
the public servant to judge whether the prosecution contemplated is frivolous or speculative. The
observations to the contrary made in Antulay case were not intended to lay down the law.
Judgements are not to be read as statutes. Discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute a public
servant—Taken away from prosecuting agency and conferred on sanctioning authority—
Sanctioning authority has to apply its mind to material on record and form its own opinion—But if
material makes out the offence, authority is bound to accord the sanction, K. Veeraswami v. Union
of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734.
► Burden of proof.—The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the sanction is
valid. Such burden includes proof that the sanctioning authority had given sanction in reference to
the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based. These facts might appear on the face
of the sanction or it might be proved by independent evidence that sanction was accorded for
prosecution after those facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority. The fact that the
sanctioning authority signed the sanction for the prosecution on the file and not the formal sanction
produced in the court makes no material difference, State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand Jain, (1974)
3 SCC 72, 80 : (1974) 1 SCR 146 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 774.
► Cognizance of offence.—If sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1988, or Section 197
of the CrPC is viewed, no Court of a Special Judge under the former Act and Magistrate under the
latter, can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the
discharge of his official duties mentioned therein except with the previous sanction of the
appropriate authority, Vinod Lal v. State of H.P., 1995 Cri LJ 2603.
Court takes cognizance of an offence and not an offender, State of W.B. v. Manmal Bhutoria,
(1977) 3 SCC 440 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 520.
► Parallel investigation.—The accused was alleged to have demanded some money for getting
the electricity connection in the name of the petitioner. In connection with the said matter, the
competent authority holding a parallel investigation to judge the truth of the allegations made against
the accused by calling for the record/report of his Department. Held, refusal to grant sanction by
taking into account ground which the Authority had no right to consider is not proper, Jagjit Singh v.
State of Punjab, 1996 Cri LJ 2962.
► Validity of sanction.—Appellant initially appointed as Special Auditor by the Commissioner.
Subsequently appellant absorbed in Local Fund Accounts Department and was working under the
control of the Chief Auditor. Held, Chief Auditor is competent authority to remove the appellant from
the service and, therefore, sanction accorded by him is valid, M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of
Maharashtra, (1995) 3 SCC 567 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 546.
Sanction implies application of mind, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997)
7 SCC 622 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784.
Non-application of mind and grant of sanction mechanically by sanctioning authority—Basis of
acquittal by High Court—High Court deeply influenced in its decision by the fact that a model
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 33 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sanction order was enclosed with the record sent to the sanctioning authority—Held, acquittal not
justified—There was no infirmity in the order granting sanction, State of T.N. v. Damodaran, 1993
Supp (1) SCC 221 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 272.
Sanction—Non-application of mind in granting sanction alleged—High Court finding on material
that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind to the materials—Held, no interference called for
and hence sanction valid, Balaram Swami v. State of Orissa, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 510 : 1991 SCC
(Cri) 707.
Infirmity in the sanction would invalidate the prosecution case, Raghubir Singh v. State of
Haryana, (1974) 4 SCC 560 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 596.
The policy underlying Section 6 and similar sections, is that there should not be unnecessary
harassment of public servants. The object is to save the public servant from the harassment of
frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations. Existence thus of a valid sanction is a prerequisite to the
taking of cognizance of the offences. In absence of such sanction the Court would have no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. A trial without a valid sanction where one is
necessary under Section 6 is a trial without jurisdiction by the court, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay,
(1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172.
The order of sanction under Section 18 must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had
considered the evidence and other material placed before it, Anti-Corruption Branch v. R.C. Anand
(Dr), (2004) 4 SCC 615 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1380.
► “Failure of justice”.—Merely because objection regarding sanction was raised at the earlier
stage of the proceedings, it cannot be a ground for holding that there was a failure of justice to
justify a stay. Even if such objection was overruled by Special Judge, though later on upheld by
High Court, that would not amount to failure of justice. Section 19(3)(c), held, per curiam, bars grant
of stay of proceedings by use of any power by any court or any ground and even by High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr P.C., Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan, (2001) 8 SCC 607.
In this case neither the trial court nor the High Court appear to have kept in view the
requirements of sub-s. 3 relating to question regarding “failure of justice”. Merely because there is
any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction, that does not affect the
validity of the proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or
irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. The same logic also applies to appellate or revisional
court. The requirements of sub-section (4) about raising the issue at the earliest stage has not been
also considered. Unfortunately, the High Court by a practically non-reasoned order, confirmed the
order passed by the learned trial judge. The orders are, therefore, indefensible, State v. T.
Venkatesh Murthy, (2004) 7 SCC 763.
► “Alteration of conviction”.—In view of Sections 19(3)(a) and 27 of the 1988 Act, held, the
conviction could not be altered or reversed by the appellate court on the ground of even absence of
sanction much less on the ground of incompetent sanction, Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K.
Sehgal, (1999) 8 SCC 501 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1494.
► Application of mind by sanctioning authority.—Competent authority is answerable to law
and law alone. Decision must therefore be taken without being influenced by extraneous
considerations (like political fallout). Time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution,
must be strictly adhered to. Article 14 of the Constitution must be construed as a guarantee against
uncanalised and arbitrary power. The absence of any time-limit in granting sanction in Section 19 of
the PC Act is not in consonance with the requirement of the due process of law which has been
read into the Constitution of India, by the Constitution Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi case,
(1978) 1 SCC 248. Section 19(1) being a special provision prevails over general provision relating
to cognizance of offence under Section 190 CrPC. There is no restriction on a private citizen filing
a private complaint against a public servant. Court is also not barred from taking cognizance of
offence by relying on incriminating material collected by private citizen. Locus standi of a private
citizen is therefore not excluded. Private citizen's right to file complaint against public servant, and to
obtain sanction for prosecuting public servant flows from rule of law. Decision to grant or to refuse
sanction is not a quasi-judicial function but an administrative function. Opportunity of hearing is
therefore not required to be given to affected person. Sanctioning authority to apply mind whether
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 34 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

material collected against a public servant is prima facie sufficient to proceed against him for
offence alleged. If so, sanction ought to be given. Sanctioning authority not to undertake detailed
enquiry whether allegations are true, Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041.
► Deemed sanction.—When Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta, if after investigation, is satisfied that
public servant has committed any criminal offence, prosecution can be initiated for which prior
sanction of any authority required under any law for such prosecution shall also be deemed to have
been granted, Chandrashekaraiah v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117 : (2013) 1 SCC
(L&S) 826 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 347.
► Absence of sanction.—Sanction under Section 19(1) is a precondition for ordering
investigation against public servant under Section 156(3) CrPC even at pre-cognizance stage. Non-
effect of absence of sanction in some circumstances under Section 19(3) does not mean that
requirement of sanction is not mandatory, Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705.
► Subsequent filing of fresh charge-sheet.—In case of discharge of accused before
commencement of trial due to invalid/improper sanction for prosecution (i.e. sanction by
incompetent authority), subsequent filing of a fresh/supplementary charge-sheet after obtaining a
valid/proper sanction, is permissible and not barred by principles of “double jeopardy”, State of
Mizoram v. C. Sangnghina, (2019) 13 SCC 335.
► Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.—What law requires is application of mind
by sanctioning authority on material placed before it to satisfy itself of prima facie case that would
constitute offence. Mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal
unless it has resulted in failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) is matter of
procedure and does not go to root of jurisdiction and once cognizance has been taken by court
under CrPC, it cannot be said that invalid police report is foundation of jurisdiction of court to take
cognizance and for that matter trial, Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88.
► Non-entitlement to protection.—Protection under Section 19 of PC Act is available to a
public servant only till he is in employment and no sanction thereunder is necessary after the public
servant has demitted office or has retired from service. As regards sanction under Section 197
CrPC, for an action to come within purview of Section 197 CrPC, it must be integrally connected
with official duties or functions of public servant concerned, and if the office was merely used as a
cloak to indulge in activities which result in unlawful gain to the beneficiaries, the protection under
said Section 197 CrPC would not be available, CBI v. B.A. Srinivasan, (2020) 2 SCC 153.
32 [20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage.—Where, in

any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or under Section 11, it is proved
that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to
obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or
attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under Section 7 for
performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either
by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage
without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under
Section 11.]
► Applicability.—Where demand is not proved, Section 20 will have no application, Om
Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 250 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 493.
► Interpreation/Construction.—Section 20(1) (prior to substitution) of the Act in essence and
substance is same as Section 4(1) of the previous Act of 1947. The expression “shall be presumed”
employed in this section read with the definition of “shall presume” in Section 4 of the Evidence Act,
1872 shows it must have the same import of compulsion, that is to say that it has to be presumed
that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act etc. if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only
condition for drawing legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that
the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. But the section does not say that
the said condition should be satisfied only by direct evidence. It can be proved by other modes
envisaged in the Evidence Act, T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 753.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 35 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

► Burden of proof.—Initial burden of proof is illegal gratification and misconduct prosecution

and once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20, it is for the accused to establish
that the amount was not received as bribe, Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462.
► Presumption.—Presumption under Section 20(1) (prior to substitution), held, is a legal or
compulsory presumption, M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
258; State of A.P. v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao, (2004) 4 SCC 399; State of A.P. v. V. Vasudeva
Rao, (2004) 9 SCC 319 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 968; T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC
753 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 870.
Presumption under Section 20(1) (prior to substitution), held, can be proved even by factual
presumption and not necessarily by direct evidence, M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1
SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258; T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 753.
Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts, State of A.P. v. C.
Uma Maheswara Rao, (2004) 4 SCC 399.
Statutory presumption under Section 20 is available for the offence punishable under Section 7
or Section 11 or Section 13(1)(a) or (b) and not for clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13
(prior to substitution), Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 5 SCC 86 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 954.
Where receipt of gratification was proved, held, the court was under a legal obligation to
presume that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty, M. Narsinga
Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258.
When money was recovered from the pocket of one of the accused persons, a presumption
under Section 20 of the Act is obligatory. It is a presumption of law and casts an obligation on the
court to operate it in every case brought in Section 7. The presumption is a rebuttable presumption
and it is by proof and not by an explanation which may seem to be plausible, T. Shankar Prasad v.
State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 753; State of A.P. v. V. Vasudeva Rao, (2004) 9 SCC 319; A. Abdul
Kaffar v. State of Kerala, (2004) 9 SCC 333, followed Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) 2
SCC 227 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 499; Surajmal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 159, distinguished; V.K. Sharma v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1975) 1 SCC 784 : 1975 SCC (Cri)
277, impliedly distinguished.
► Rebutted of presumption.—Accused can rebut charge either through cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. Burden of proof on accused under Section
20 is not the same as the burden placed on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt,
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779.
► Rebuttal of statutory presumption.—Statutory presumption can be rebutted by bringing on
record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for
motive or reward under Section 7. Standard required for rebutting presumption is tested on anvil of
preponderance of probabilities which is threshold of lower degree than proof beyond all reasonable
doubt, Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88.
► Reasonable doubt.—While invoking provisions of Section 20 court is required to consider
explanation offered by accused, if any, only on touchstone of preponderance of probability and not
on touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11
SCC 642.
Keeping in view that the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a
condition precedent for constituting an offence under PC Act, it is to be noted that there is a
statutory presumption under Section 20, PC Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing
on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was accepted other than for
the motive or the reward as stipulated under Section 7, PC Act. When some explanation is offered,
the court is obliged to consider the explanation under Section 20 and the consideration of the
explanation has to be on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven
beyond all reasonable doubt, K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 791 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 257.
21. Accused person to be a competent witness.—Any person charged with an
offence punishable under this Act, shall be a competent witness for the defence and
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 36 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person
charged together with him at the same trial:
Provided that—
(a) he shall not be called as a witness except at his own request;
(b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by
the prosecution or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person
charged together with him at the same trial;
(c) he shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any
question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of any
offence other than the offence with which he is charged, or is of bad character,
unless—
(i) the proof that he has committed or been convicted of such offence is
admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence with which he
is charged, or
(ii) he has personally or by his pleader asked any question of any witness for
the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character, or has
given evidence of his good character, or the nature or conduct of the
defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor
or of any witness for the prosecution, or
(iii) he has given evidence against any other person charged with the same
offence.
22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply subject to certain modifications.
—The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall in their
application to any proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act have
effect as if,—
(a) in sub-section (1) of Section 243, for the words “The accused shall then be
called upon”, the words “The accused shall then be required to give in writing
at once or within such time as the Court may allow, a list of the persons (if
any) whom he proposes to examine as his witnesses and of the documents (if
any) on which he proposes to rely and he shall then be called upon” had been
substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2) of Section 309, after the third proviso, the following
proviso had been inserted, namely:—
“Provided also that the proceeding shall not be adjourned or postponed merely
on the ground that an application under Section 397 has been made by a
party to the proceeding”;
(c) after sub-section (2) of Section 317, the following sub-section had been
inserted, namely:—
“(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him,
proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and
record the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to recall
the witness for cross-examination”;
(d) in sub-section (1) of Section 397, before the Explanation, the following
proviso had been inserted, namely:—
“Provided that where the powers under this section are exercised by a Court
on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the Court shall not
ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings:—
(a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the
record should not be called for; or
(b) if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 37 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

be made from the certified copies.”

► Applicability.—The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to trials under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 subject to certain modifications as contained in Section 22 of the
Act and their exclusion either express or by necessary implication. Section 223 Cr PC has not been
excluded either expressly or by necessary implication nor has the same been modified in their
application to trials under the Act. The said provision therefore is applicable to the trial of an offence
punishable under the Act, Vivek Gupta v. CBI, (2003) 8 SCC 628.
23. Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under33 [Section 13(1)(a)].—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), when an accused is charged with an offence under 34 [clause (a)] of sub-section
(1) of Section 13, it shall be sufficient to describe in the charge the property in respect
of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates between which
the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or
exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence
within the meaning of Section 219 of the said Code:
Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not
exceed one year.
24. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution.—35 [* * *]
25. Military, Naval and Air Force or other law not to be affected.—(1) Nothing in this
Act shall affect the jurisdiction exercisable by, or the procedure applicable to, any
court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), the Air Force Act,
1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), the Border Security Force Act,
1968 (47 of 1968), the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (30 of 1978), and the National Security
Guard Act, 1986 (47 of 1986).
(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of any
such law as is referred to in sub-section (1), the court of a Special Judge shall be
deemed to be a court of ordinary criminal justice.
26. Special Judges appointed under Act 46 of 1952 to be Special Judges appointed
under this Act.—Every Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1952, for any area or areas and is holding office on the commencement of this Act
shall be deemed to be a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of this Act for that
area or areas and, accordingly, on and from such commencement, every such Judge
shall continue to deal with all the proceedings pending before him on such
commencement in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
This section provides that a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1952 and holding office on the commencement of the proposed
legislation shall be deemed to be a Special Judge appointed under Section 3.
► Appointment — Special Judges.—Section 26 protects the appointment of those Special
Judges who were earlier appointed under Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. In
re : H.D. Barman v. CBI/SPE/Calcutta through State of W.B., (1993) 2 CHN 141.
27. Appeal and revision.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court may
exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all the powers of appeal and revision
conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a High Court as if
the Court of the Special Judge were a Court of Session trying cases within the local
limits of the High Court.
► Special Judge — not subordinate.—In view of the provisions of Section 27 of the PC Act of
1988, Special Judge is not subordinate to the Sessions Judge, Ravi Nandan Sahay, Sessions
Judge, Patna, 1993 Cri LJ 2436 (FB).
► Corrections of date.—Where appellant-accused contended for the first time before the High
Court that the date written on the complaint made to CBI was different from that claimed by the
prosecution, since there was a question of fact, High Court could not have made out a new case
regarding correctness of the date. Mere suggestions made before the trial court that the document
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 38 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

was not prepared at the time alleged, held, could not sustain the said plea as there is a lot of
difference between “time” and “date”, State of A.P. v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao, (2004) 4 SCC 399.
28. Act to be in addition to any other law.—The provisions of this Act shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and
nothing contained herein shall exempt any public servant from any proceeding which
might, apart from this Act, be instituted against him.
29. Amendment of the Ordinance 38 of 1944.—In the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944,—
(a) in sub-section (1) of Section 3, sub-section (1) of Section 9, clause (a) of
Section 10, sub-section (1) of Section 11 and sub-section (1) of Section 13,
for the words “State Government”, wherever they occur, the words “State
Government or, as the case may be, the Central Government” shall be
substituted;
(b) in Section 10, in clause (a), for the words “three months”, the words “one
year” shall be substituted;
(c) in the Schedule,—
(i) paragraph 1 shall be omitted;
(ii) in paragraphs 2 and 4,—
(a) after the words “a local authority”, the words and figures “or a
corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or
an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by Government or a
Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act,
1956 (1 of 1956), or a society aided by such corporation, authority, body
or Government company” shall be inserted;
(b) after the words “or authority”, the words “or corporation or body or
Government company or society” shall be inserted;
(iii) for paragraph 4-A, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:
—
“4-A. An offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.”;
(iv) in paragraph 5, for the words and figures “items 2, 3 and 4”, the words,
figures and letter “items 2, 3, 4 and 4-A” shall be substituted.
36
[29-A. Power to make rules.—(1) The Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,
such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) guidelines which can be put in place by commercial organisation under
Section 9;
(b) guidelines for sanction of prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 19;
(c) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
(3) Every rule made under this Act, shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of
thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or
the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in
the rule, or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall
thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may
be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to
the validity of anything previously done under that rule.]
30. Repeal and saving.—(1) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) and
the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952) are hereby repealed.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 39 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice to the application of Section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), anything done or any action taken or
purported to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the Acts so repealed
shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to
have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of this
Act.
► Applicability.—Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act does not substitute its Section 13 in place of
Section 5 of the 1947 Act. Section 30(2) is applicable “without prejudice to the application of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., (2002) 9 SCC
639.
► Effect of the Act.—Section 30(2) introduces a legal fiction to the effect that the Act had
come into force when anything was done or action was taken under or in pursuance of the Act of
1947, Nar Bahadur Bhandari v. State of Sikkim, (1998) 5 SCC 39 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1252.
The consistency, referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 is with respect to acts done in
pursuance of the repealed Act and thus restricted it to such provision of the Acts which come for
interpretation of the court and not the whole of the scheme of the enactment. There is no
inconsistency between Section 5-A of the 1947 Act and Section 17 of the 1988 Act and provisions
of the General Clauses Act would be applicable and with the aid of sub-section (2) of Section 30
anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken in pursuance of the
1947 Act be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding
provision of the 1988 Act. For that have been in force at the time when the impugned notifications
were issued under the then prevalent corresponding law. Otherwise also there does not appear any
inconsistency between the two enactments except that the scope and field covered by the 1988 Act
has been widened and enlarged. Both the enactments deal with the same subject matter i.e.
corruption amongst the public servants and make provision to deal with such a menace. Hence there
was no substance in the argument that the provision made in the two enactments were inconsistent
and sub-section (2) of Section 30 would not save the notifications issued under the 1947 Act, State
of Punjab v. Harnek Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 481 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 659; Harnek Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1999 Cri LJ 635 (P&H), reversed.
31. Omission of certain sections of Act 45 of 1860.—37 [Repealed]
NOTES ► This section provides for the omission of Sections 161 to 165-A of the
Penal Code with necessary saving provision.
———
1.Received the assent of the President of India on September 9, 1988 and published in the Gazette of India,
Extra., Part II, Section 1, dated 12th September, 1988, pp. 1-13.
2.The words “except the State of Jammu and Kashmir” omitted by Act 34 of 2019, Ss. 95, 96 & Sch. V (w.e.f.
31-10-2019).
3. Ins. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 2(i) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
4.
Ins. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 2(ii) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
5. Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 3 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a Special
Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.”
6. Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 4 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.—
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing
to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or
Government company referred to in clause (c ) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or
otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations.—(a) “Expecting to be a public servant.” If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 40 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve
them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) “Gratification.” The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications
estimable in money.
(c ) “Legal remuneration.” The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public
servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the
organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) “A motive or reward for doing.” A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing
what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government
has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any
other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this
section.”
7.
Ins. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 4 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
8. Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 4 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018) Prior to substitution it read as : .
“8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant.—Whoever
accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other
person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public
servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the
official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to
render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company
referred to in clause (c ) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
9. Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 4 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“9. Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant.—Whoever accepts or
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any
gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public
servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the
official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to
render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company
referred to in clause (c ) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
10.
Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 4 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“10. Punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or 9.—Whoever, being a
public servant, in respect of whom either of the offences defined in Section 8 or Section 9 is committed,
abets the offence, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine.”
11.
Subs. for “valuable thing” by Act 16 of 2018, S. 5(i) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
12. The words “or agrees to accept” omitted. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 5(ii) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018)
13.
Subs. for “valuable thing” by Act 16 of 2018, S. 5(iii) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
14. Subs. for “official functions” by Act 16 of 2018, S. 5(iv) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
15. Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 6 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11.—Whoever abets any offence
punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that
abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
16.
Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 7 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself
or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is
mentioned in Section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other
person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 41 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any
proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the
official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom
he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(c ) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property
entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) if he,—

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage without any public interest; or

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been
in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or
property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any
lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or
orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
17. Subs. for “one year” by Act 1 of 2014, S. 58 and Sch. (Part III) (w.e.f. 16-1-2014).

18. Subs. for “seven years” by Act 1 of 2014, S. 58 and Sch. (Part III) (w.e.f. 16-1-2014).
19. Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, S. 8 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“14. Habitual committing of offence under Sections 8, 9 and 12.—Whoever habitually commits—

(a) an offence punishable under Section 8 or Section 9; or

(b) an offence punishable under Section 12,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to
ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
20.
Subs. for “clause (c ) or clause (d)” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 9 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
21. Subs. for “which may extend to three years” by Act 1 of 2014, S. 58 and Sch. (Part III) (w.e.f. 16-1-2014).
22. Subs. for “sub-section (2) of Section 13 or Section 14” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 10(a) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
23.
Subs. for “clause (b)” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 10(b) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
24. Subs. for “clause (e) of sub-section (1)” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 11 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
25. Ins. by Act 16 of 2018 S. 12 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
26.
Ins. by Act 16 of 2018 S. 13 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
27. Subs. for “Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 14(i) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
28.
Ins. by Act 1 of 2014, S. 58 and Sch. (Part III) (w.e.f. 16-1-2014).
29.
Subs. for “who is employed” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 14(ii) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
30. Subs. for “who is employed” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 14(iii) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
31. Ins. by Act 16 of 2018 S. 14(iv) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
32.
Subs. by Act 16 of 2018 S. 15 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to substitution it read as:
“20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in
any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or
attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or
any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or
obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 42 Saturday, November 05, 2022
Printed For: madan gopal jat, National University of Study & Research, Ranchi
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is
proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered
to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the
case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be, without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the
presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its
opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”
33. Subs. for “Section 13(1)(c )” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 16(a) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
34. Subs. for “clause (c )” by Act 16 of 2018 S. 16(b) (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
35.
Omitted by Act 16 of 2018 S. 17 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018). Prior to omission it read as:
“24. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution.—Notwithstanding anything contained in
any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant
for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 or Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer
any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject
such person to a prosecution under Section 12.”
36.
Ins. by Act 16 of 2018 S. 18 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).
37.
Repealed by Act 30 of 2001, S. 2 and Sch. I. Prior to repeal it read as:
“31. Omission of certain sections of Act 45 of 1860.—Sections 161 to 165-A (both inclusive) of the Indian
Penal Code shall be omitted, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), shall apply to such
omission as if the said sections had been repealed by a Central Act.”

► Ed. : Repeal by this Act shall not affect any other enactment in which the repealed enactment has been
applied, incorporated or referred to.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.