Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

149 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M.C. GUPTAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN

2012 INSC 36831 August 2012Disposed off

The appellants, M.C. Gupta and Mohan Lal Gupta, were convicted for misappropriating company funds by issuing a bank draft in 1988, an offence that occurred before the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came into force. An FIR was lodged in 1990 under the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the trial court

RAMESH BALKRISHNA KULKARNIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1985 INSC 16331 July 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Municipal Councillor, was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He appealed, contending that a Municipal Councillor is not a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC and therefore cannot be prosecuted

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.versusSURINDER PAL SINGH

1989 INSC 3231 January 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Surinder Pal Singh, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was accused of misappropriating twenty gold bricks recovered during an investigation and was charged under several IPC sections, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Treasure‑Trove Act. The investigation was carried out by an Inspector of the Crime Branch, whic

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusISHWAR PIRAJI KALPATRI AND ORS.

1995 INSC 81830 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a senior police officer, was investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. After a FIR was lodged, the Maharashtra government granted sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and a charge‑sheet was filed. The Bombay High Court, invoki

KHILLI RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1984 INSC 20530 October 1984Appeal(s) allowed

Khilli Ram, a Head Constable, was convicted under IPC s.161 and the Prevention of Corruption Act (sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2)) for allegedly accepting a bribe in a police‑trap. The prosecution relied on a decoy witness, two panch witnesses and several police officers, but many of these witnesses turned hostile or gave st

R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA

2000 INSC 42530 August 2000Dismissed

R. Balakrishna Pillai, a former Kerala minister, was convicted under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for abusing his office to supply electricity to a private firm in Karnataka. He filed a criminal appeal before the Kerala High Court and subsequently moved a transfer petition in the

N.P. JHARIAversusSTATE OF M.P.

2007 INSC 79230 July 2007Dismissed

N.P. Jharia, a Sales Tax Officer, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and a fine; the High Court upheld the conviction but re

K. KALIMUTHUversusSTATE BY D.S.P.

2005 INSC 16530 March 2005Disposed off

The appellants, who were public servants, were charged with offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act and contended that the Special Judge could not take cognizance without the prior sanction required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court held that the appellants had f

TARSEM LALversusSTATE OF HARYANA

1987 INSC 2830 January 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a patwari, demanded Rs.200 for supplying copies of revenue records to a landowner, receiving Rs.50 in advance and promising the balance of Rs.150 on the registration date. The landowner paid the Rs.150 to the patwari, after which the Sub‑Divisional Officer, suspecting misconduct, laid a trap and recovere

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSADAN K. BORMAL AND ANR.

2004 INSC 32629 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal filed a criminal appeal against S.K. Bormal and others, who were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for offences alleged to have been committed in August 1988. The 1947 Act was repealed on 9 September 1988 by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the case was transferred

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAYAK & ANR.

1988 INSC 12329 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was prosecuted for corruption offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, in an earlier order dated 16.2.1984, suo motu transferred the case from the Special Judge to the Bombay High Court for speedy trial. The appe

C.S. KRISHNAMURTHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2005 INSC 16329 March 2005Dismissed

C.S. Krishnamurthy, a technical supervisor in Bangalore Telephones, was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income between 1964 and 1986. The Deputy General Manager of the department sanctioned the prosecution

KAZI LHENDUP DORJIversusTHE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

1994 INSC 12929 March 1994Case Allowed

The former Chief Minister of Sikkim challenged a 1987 notification that withdrew the State's consent, given under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, for CBI investigations into alleged corruption. The petition raised whether a State could revoke such consent, whether section 21 of the Genera

S. VASUNDARAversusCANARA BANK AND ORS.

1996 INSC 123528 October 1996Dismissed

The petitioner, a manager of Canara Bank, was convicted by a criminal court for offences under Sections 420, 477A of the IPC and Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one year imprisonment with fines. The High Court later suspended the sentence pending appeal. The bank is

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMANINDER SINGH

2015 INSC 61428 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI alleged that Maninder Singh, together with a co‑accused, obtained credit facilities from New Bank of India by submitting forged documents and colluding with a bank manager, thereby cheating the bank of over Rs 10.62 lakh. After a lengthy investigation, a charge‑sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471

JANTA DAL ETC. ETC.versusH.S. CHOWDHARY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1992 INSC 22628 August 1992Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a petition filed by H.S. Chowdhary, claiming to be a public‑interest litigant, seeking to quash a FIR and stop a letter rogatory to Switzerland in the Bofors scandal. The Court held that Chowdhary had no locus standi and that the petition did not fall within the definition of public‑interest

SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2019 INSC 29228 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and Ramdeo Prasad, were officials/contractor handling urea bags for the Food Corporation of India. They were alleged to have conspired to misappropriate a total of 1,040 bags of urea and to falsify gate‑register, ‘G’‑Form and ‘O’‑Form entries to show that 500 bags had been deli

CBI, ACB, MUMBAIversusNARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS.

2014 INSC 15228 February 2014Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that Narendra Lal Jain and others conspired with officials of the Bank of Maharashtra to inflate the creditworthiness of companies and obtain loans beyond entitlement, invoking Sections 120‑B and 420 of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Acts. While

R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA

2003 INSC 13128 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, R. Balakrishna Pillai (former Minister for Electricity, Kerala) and P. Kesava Pillai (Technical Member/Chairman of KSEB), were convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly selling 1,22,41,440 units of Kerala electricity to Mis. Graphite India L

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusLALJIT RAJSHI SHAH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 10828 February 2000Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court decision that held the chairman and managing committee members of a cooperative society were not "public servants" for purposes of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). The respondents had been prosecuted for o

GIRIJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2007 INSC 87127 August 2007Dismissed

Girja Prasad, a lower‑division clerk, was alleged to have accepted Rs 200 as a bribe on behalf of his superior, the Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, after a trap was laid by the complainant and police officials. The trial court acquitted him, deeming the key witnesses (the complainant and a police inspector) as in

THE JANATA DAL & ORS. ETC.versusH.S. CHOWDHARY & ORS. ETC.

1991 INSC 21027 August 1991Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a public interest litigation filed by H.S. Chowdhary under Article 51A challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation's request to issue a Letter Rogatory to Switzerland in the Bofors scandal. The Court held that the petitioner and intervening parties (Janata Dal, CPI(M), Indian Congress (So

MEET SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1980 INSC 3927 February 1980Dismissed

Meet Singh was convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, together with a fine. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the imprisonment term to the

STATE THROUGH S.P., NEW DELHIversusRATAN LAL ARORA

2004 INSC 31026 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a former commercial superintendent of the Delhi Vidyut Board, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.1,500. The trial court sentenced him to 20 months and 40 months of rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines, an

B. HANUMANTHA RAOversusSTATE OF A.P.

1992 INSC 9226 March 1992Dismissed

B. Hanumantha Rao, an Excise Sub‑Inspector, was charged with accepting Rs 50,000 as illegal gratification from an arrack contractor. He claimed the money was rent arrears that the contractor could not deposit because the bank was closed, and he refused to keep the cash. The prosecution conducted a trap, recovered the m

TARLOCHAN DEV SHARMAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2001 INSC 30925 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tarlochan Dev Sharma, was the elected President of Rajpura Municipality and was removed under Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 on the ground of "abuse of his powers" for allegedly withholding payment for a fogging machine. He contended that the machine was defective, that his decision was mad

K. VEERASWAMIversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

1991 INSC 16325 July 1991Dismissed

The appellant, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. He sought to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that judges are not "public servants" under the Act and that no prior sanction was req

HARBANS SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

1984 INSC 12925 July 1984Dismissed

Harbans Singh was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the trial court imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory minimum. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its discretion under Section 5(2), reduced the sentence to the period already served, citing reasons it deemed sufficient. The pe

RAVICHANDRANversusSTATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS

2010 INSC 16925 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for conspiracy, cheating, forgery of a palmolein oil permit and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution alleged that accused A1, A2 and A4 had interpolated and forged the permit, relying mainly on handwriting identification by witnesse

P.K. PRADHANversusSTATE OF SIKKIM REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL BUREAU

2001 INSC 30424 July 2001Dismissed

The appellant, P.K. Pradhan, a former Secretary of the Rural Development Department of Sikkim, and the then Chief Minister were charged under Section 120‑B IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Acts for conspiring to award rural water‑scheme contracts at low rates. The Special Judge held that no prior sanction under Sec

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusASHOK KUMAR MITRA

1995 INSC 14324 February 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Branch Manager of Bank of India, was charged with several offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He contended that, as an employee of a nationalised bank, he was not a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC and therefore could not be tried by a Special Court

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.versusNATHU RAM

2009 INSC 125423 November 2009Dismissed

Nathu Ram, a former employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (later Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.), was suspended in 1979 after being caught accepting a bribe and was convicted in 1982, leading to his dismissal. The High Court acquitted him in 1997 and reinstated him, granting full pay for the suspension per

VAKIL PRASAD SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2009 INSC 6223 January 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Vakil Prasad Singh, an Assistant Engineer of the Bihar State Electricity Board, was accused in 1981 of demanding a bribe and a charge‑sheet was filed in 1982. The case languished for decades, with the High Court ordering a fresh investigation in 1990 that was never completed, and a new charge‑sheet only filed in 2007.

RAJ RAJENDRA SINGH SETH @ R.R.S. SETHversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

2008 INSC 85522 July 2008Dismissed

Doctor R.R.S. Seth demanded Rs 500 from a relative of a patient for proper medical treatment, directing the payment to be made to his ward boy Nag Narain who would pass it on. A CBI‑led trap recovered the money and the doctor and ward boy were arrested. They were convicted under IPC sections 1208 (conspiracy) and 161 (

STATE(SPE HYDERABAD)versusAIR COMMODORE KAILASH CHAND

1979 INSC 27521 December 1979Dismissed

The respondent, a retired Air Force officer who had been re‑employed and transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve and subsequently to the Auxiliary Air Force, was charged under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for offences alleged to have occurred between March 1965 and March 1967. He moved to have

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORSversusCH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS.

1990 INSC 36321 November 1990Disposed off

The State of Haryana filed a special leave appeal after the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) that had been lodged on a complaint alleging that former Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal had amassed wealth through corrupt means. The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations disclosed

STATE OF U.P.versusDR. G. K. GHOSH

1983 INSC 12521 September 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Dr. G.K. Ghosh, a government orthopaedic surgeon, was convicted by a Special Judge for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a patient’s father under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for criminal intimidation under Section 161 IPC. The conviction was set aside b

MUNILAL MOCHIversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2011 INSC 51221 July 2011

The appellant was charged with misappropriation of funds under the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) for offences under several IPC sections and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After a protracted investigation, he was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to two and a half years' rigorous imprisonment, which

M.W. MOHIUDDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1995 INSC 19421 March 1995Dismissed

M.W. Mohiuddin, a Special Auditor in the Local Fund Accounts Department, demanded and received Rs.400 from a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch in exchange for removing audit objections. He was caught in a police‑arranged trap at a hotel, and the prosecution proved that he took possession of the money, wrapped it in a handkerchie

N. M. PARTHASARATHYversusSTATE BY S. P. E.

1992 INSC 1821 January 1992Disposed off

N.M. Parthasarathy, a former Inspector of Industries, and another Inspector were charged with criminal conspiracy to obtain a Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate, Essentiality Certificate and import licences by making false representations. The trial court acquitted them, but the Madras High Court, after re

MOHD. MUMTAZversusNANDINI SATPATHY AND ORS.

1986 INSC 27720 December 1986Dismissed

The appellant, Mohd. Mumtaz, challenged the order allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against respondent Nandini Satpathy under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Satpathy had been charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to her known income. The Special Public P

SHEO NANDAN PASWANversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1986 INSC 27920 December 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a consent order under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allowed the withdrawal of prosecution against Dr. Jagannath Misra and others. The Court considered whether the public prosecutor acted independently, whether the magistrate properly exercised its

NIKHIL MERCHANTversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR

2008 INSC 94820 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former managing director of a company that had defaulted on a loan from Andhra Bank, was charged by the CBI with cheating, forgery and corruption offences. The bank’s civil suit for recovery was later compromised, with clause 11 stating that both parties withdrew all claims against each other. The appe

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusR.L. VAID AND ORS.

2004 INSC 46420 August 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

The accused, charged under IPC s.120‑B and the Prevention of Corruption Act, applied to the trial court for the production of eight documents. The CBI and Punjab National Bank (the appellant) claimed the documents were privileged communication under Evidence Act s.124. The trial court ordered production, but the High C

N. BHARGAVAN PILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA

2004 INSC 29320 April 2004Dismissed

N.B. Bhargavan Pillai, a public servant on deputation, failed to hand over stock of rice, palmolein and sugar at the end of his tenure, resulting in a shortage valued at Rs.1,63,770. He deposited Rs.50,000 and promised to pay the balance, but retired before a sanction for prosecution could be obtained. He was convicted

SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI, M.P. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 30320 March 1997Disposed off

A writ petition filed by MP Dinesh Trivedi and NGOs under Article 32 sought full disclosure of the Vohra Committee Report, its supporting annexures, and the names of officials implicated, and challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The Court held that the Report tabled in Parlia

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusTARA DUTT AND ANR.

1999 INSC 52619 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Himachal Pradesh charged Tara Dutt and others under IPC sections 468, 420, 120‑B and the Prevention of Corruption Act for forging receipts in 1983. The charge‑sheet was filed in 1987 and cognizance was taken the same year. The Special Judge acquitted them of the charged offences but convicted them under se

RAMJI PRASAD JAISWAL @ RAMJEE PRASAD JAISWAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

2025 INSC 73819 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Ramji Prasad Jaiswal, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal, were convicted for a 1982 fraud against the State Bank of India under IPC sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the trial, their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded by asking only fou

LAKHVIR SINGH ETCversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2021 INSC 3019 January 2021Disposed off

The appellants, aged 19 and 20, were convicted under Section 397 IPC for grievous hurt and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. While the State argued that the mandatory minimum sentence could not be reduced, the appellants sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, citing their

MAYANK N SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2019 INSC 139618 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a chief manager (operations) of a partnership firm, was convicted along with others for presenting forged bills and transport receipts to obtain credit facilities from a bank, thereby cheating the bank. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly submitted fake invoices an

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusCH. BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

1992 INSC 35718 December 1992Dismissed

The DIG of Police, S.A. Khan, filed a contempt petition seeking suo moto proceedings against Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal, alleging that a press statement made by the latter interfered with pending corruption proceedings before the Supreme Court. The petition also contained interlocutory applications for punishment, s

S.A. KHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 35818 December 1992Dismissed

Deputy Inspector General of Police S.A. Khan was suspended by the Haryana Government on 5 July 1991, a suspension later confirmed by the Central Government under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969. Khan alleged that the suspension was mala fide, intended to protect Chief Minister Bhajan Lal fro

SALIMKHAN SARDARKHANversusSTARE OF GUJARAT

1985 INSC 19818 September 1985Appeal(s) allowed

A police constable was charged under IPC s.161 and the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting a Rs 50 bribe from a taxi driver. The prosecution had laid a trap by treating the money with phenolphthalein, which turned rosy when tested, and recovered the notes from the constable's left pocket. The constable

SELVARAJversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 58018 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Selvaraj, a former First Division Assistant in the District Treasury, Hassan, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.200 from a complainant who later died before trial. The prosecution relied on a trap operation and the recovery of money allegedly from the appellant's possession, but the complainant

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusW.N. CHADHA

1992 INSC 34717 December 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the Union of India's and CBI's challenge to a Delhi High Court order that quashed the FIR registered against W.N. Chadha in the Bofors scandal and set aside the letters rogatory issued to Swiss authorities. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence and that the High Court ha

N. NAVEEN KUMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF A.P.

2008 INSC 117817 October 2008Dismissed

The accused, a government servant, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment, imposed a fine, and ordered that four specified assets be auctioned with proceeds

N. RAMAKRISHNAIAH (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusSTATE OF A.P.

2008 INSC 117917 October 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a former Executive Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment, i

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(C.B.I)versusDEEPAK CHOWDHARY AND ORS.

1995 INSC 47717 August 1995Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint was lodged that the United Bank of India, where the respondent was branch manager, had been defrauded of Rs. 45,000 in collusion with some officers. The Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) investigated and obtained sanction under s.6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to file a charge‑sheet for s

L.D. JAIKWALversusSTATE OF U.P.

1984 INSC 11117 May 1984Dismissed

Senior advocate L.D. Jaikwal, after being asked to appear in proper court attire before a Special Judge, left the courtroom and later submitted a written application using scurrilous language, calling the judge a "corrupt judge" and "contaminating the seat of justice" and forwarding copies to various authorities. The A

R.S. NAYAKversusA.R. ANTULAY & ANR.

1986 INSC 8617 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal by R.S. Nayak against former Maharashtra Chief Minister A.R. Antulay concerning the framing of charges under sections 120B, 161, 165, 384, and 420 of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial judge had framed 21 charges and discharged the respondent on 22 other

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSUBODH KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR.

1997 INSC 3517 January 1997Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet against Subodh Kumar Dutta under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 700. A Special Judge, appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949, took cognizance of the offence on 9 July 1988. The 1947 Act was re

SHEONANDAN PASWANversusSTATE OF BIHAR

1982 INSC 10016 December 1982Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the withdrawal of a criminal case against the former Chief Minister of Bihar and others under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State had appointed a new special public prosecutor, L.P. Sinha, who applied to the Special Judge for permission to withdraw, citing lack of p

EDMUNDS LYNGDOHversusSTATE OF MEGHALAYA

2014 INSC 63616 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the procurement of Damp Proof Cement by North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) where the Chief Engineer (A‑1) and other officials were alleged to have colluded to obtain the material at an inflated price of Rs.42.75 per kg, far above the market rate of Rs.5‑10 per kg. The prosecution proved that A‑1, a

STATE OF GUJARATversusRAGHUNATH VAMANRAO BAXI

1985 INSC 8916 April 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an Income Tax Officer, was tried and convicted by a Special Judge for accepting a bribe of Rs.12,500 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two panch witnesses (postal off

R. S. NAYAKversusA.R. ANTULAY

1984 INSC 3216 February 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant R.S. Nayak filed a private complaint against the respondent A.R. Antulay, then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, alleging corruption under Sections 161, 164, 165 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The complaint was initially dismissed for lack of a sanction under Section 6 of the 19

A.R. ANTULAYversusRAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK AND ANOTHER

1984 INSC 3316 February 1984Dismissed

The appellant, A.R. Antulay, challenged the jurisdiction of a Special Judge who had taken cognizance of corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, based on a private complaint filed by the respondent, R.S. Nayak. The issues were whether a Special Judge could entertain a private complaint under th

M.R.KUDVAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2006 INSC 102215 December 2006Dismissed

M.R. Kudva, a bank manager, was convicted in two separate cases for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, receiving 18 months' rigorous imprisonment in one case and two years in the other. Both convictions and sentences were upheld by the High Court and th

STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCHversusR. VASANTHI STANLEY &ANR.

2015 INSC 102215 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the Inspector of Police (Central Crime Branch), appealed against the Madras High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings against R. Vasanti Stanley and her husband for allegedly forging documents to obtain loans from several banks. The High Court had set aside the charges on the basis that

STATE OF PUNJABversusHARNEK SINGH

2002 INSC 8415 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab appealed against a High Court order that quashed FIRs and subsequent proceedings against Harnek Singh, alleging that the investigations were conducted by police officers not authorized under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused had been investigated under notifications issued under th

HAZARI LALversusDELHI ADMINISTRATION

1980 INSC 2715 February 1980Dismissed

Hazari Lal, a police constable, demanded a Rs.60 bribe for releasing the complainant's scooter rickshaw. The complainant reported the demand to the Anti‑Corruption Department, where an inspector set a trap by marking six currency notes with phenol‑phthalene powder and handing them to the complainant, who passed them to

SONELAL TIWARIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1998 INSC 2415 January 1998Dismissed

The appellant, a Revenue Inspector, was caught in a police‑set trap after demanding a bribe of Rs.50 for certifying a sale deed. Marked currency notes were recovered from beneath his bag and a phenolphthalein test on his fingers was positive. The trial court acquitted him citing discrepancies in witness testimony, but

R. N. AGARWALversusR. C. BANSAL & ORS.

2014 INSC 72014 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI filed a charge‑sheet in a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act against six persons for conspiracy, forgery and corruption. The Special Judge, exercising powers under Section 5 of the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned three additional persons who had been listed as witnesses. The D

KISHAN CHAND MANGALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

1982 INSC 7214 October 1982Dismissed

Kishan Chand Mangal, a factory inspector, demanded a Rs.150 bribe from factory owner Rajendra Dutt, who filed a complaint. The Anti‑Corruption Department set a trap, marking the money with phenolphthalein and having two witnesses, Ram Babu and Keshar Mal, observe the hand‑over. The accused’s hands turned pink when dipp

GANAPATHI SANYA NAIKversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2007 INSC 91814 September 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a village accountant, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.1,000 from a land purchaser (PW‑6) for mutation entries and revenue documents. After PW‑6 complained, a police‑arranged trap recovered cash that had been placed on the accountant's table, and the prosecution alleged the money was demanded and r

STATE OF KERALAversusV. PADMANABHAN NAIR

1999 INSC 27314 July 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a former Executive Engineer of the Kerala Public Works Department, was charged with defrauding the government by misappropriating steel rods, involving offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and IPC Sections 406, 409, 201, 109 and 120‑B. After his retirement, he sought dis

BIPIN CHANDRA PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL (VAKIL)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

2003 INSC 22914 April 2003Dismissed

B.P. Patel, elected President of Anand Municipality, was arrested and placed in judicial custody for alleged offences under the IPC, Arms Act and Bombay Police Act. The Director of Municipalities suspended him under Section 40 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, which provides for suspension if a municipal officer

V.K. VERMAversusCBI

2014 INSC 10314 February 2014Case Partly allowed

V.K. Verma was convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for demanding a bribe of Rs.265 in 1984. The trial court sentenced him to one and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 on each count, which the High Court uphe

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusV. VASUDEVA RAO

2003 INSC 63013 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted V. Vasudeva Rao, an Assistant Controller, for demanding a bribe to prevent his transfer and for accepting the money, which he claimed was a hand loan. A trap was arranged, the accused was caught with the money, and the complainant died before he could be examined. The trial court

A. WATI AOversusTHE STATE OF MANIPUR

1995 INSC 62113 October 1995Dismissed

The appellant, a senior IAS officer, was convicted under IPC 120‑B read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for conspiring to award a contract to a black‑listed firm at exorbitant rates. The trial court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 and imprisonment till the rising of the court; the High Court dismis

STATE OF M.P.versusHARISHANKAR BHAGWAN PD. TRIPATHI

2010 INSC 51013 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted two individuals under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for demanding illegal gratification in connection with an excise licence. A trap was arranged in which the complainant handed over treated currency notes; the deceased acc

SHRI SHANKAR PRASAD GHOSH (DEAD)versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2008 INSC 75413 June 2008Disposed off

Shankar Prasad Ghosh was convicted under several provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court with altered sentences. He filed a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court, but died while the appeal was pending. Five years after his death, his relatives

NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

1998 INSC 24013 May 1998Dismissed

The Chief Minister of Sikkim and an IAS officer were charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for offences alleged in 1984. After the 1947 Act was repealed and replaced by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a Special Judge appointed under the 1988 Act tried the case, but later held it lacked jurisdicti

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND ORS.

1994 INSC 21213 May 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a trial before a Special Judge concerning alleged conspiracy and corruption in the Idamalayar Dam project. The Special Public Prosecutor sought, under Section 321 of the CrPC, permission to withdraw prosecution against one accused, G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, on the ground that there was no material to

ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR.versusDEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA

1997 INSC 26613 March 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Allahabad Bank suspended clerk Deepak Kumar Bhola under clause 19.3(a) of the First Bipartite Settlement after a CBI investigation and charge‑sheet alleging forgery, cheating and other offences involving moral turpitude. Bhola challenged the suspension before the Allahabad High Court, which quashed it on the ground tha

SEETA HEMCHANDRA SHASHITTAL AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 8613 February 2001Case Partly allowed

A senior government officer was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The investigation took four years (1986‑1990) and the government took another two years to grant sanction, after which a charge‑sheet was filed in 1993. The trial progressed slowly

GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK & ANR.versusM. VENURANGANATH

2007 INSC 127412 December 2007Dismissed

M. Venurangnanath, a branch manager of UCO Bank, was charged with offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act and was acquitted with benefit of doubt. He had been suspended from service during the criminal proceedings and, after reinstatement, faced departmental enquiry which found him guilty, resulting

STATE OF U.P.versusZAKAULLAH

1997 INSC 81412 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The State appealed the acquittal of Revenue Inspector Zakaullah, who was convicted by a trial court for taking a Rs 400 bribe under IPC Sec 161 and the Prevention of Corruption Act Sec 5(2). The bribe was given by Satpal Singh (PW‑5) after a trap was arranged by the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, and the seized notes tested p

MAHENDRA SINGH CHOTELAL BHARGADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 81512 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mahendra Singh, received Rs.3,000 from a guest house manager after two police officers, Uttamrao Baburao Raut and Abdul Kadar, demanded the money as gratification to drop a criminal case. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was part of a corrupt arrangement and convicted him under Section 163 of t

VASANT ARJUNRAO BHANDAKversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 46512 November 2002Dismissed

Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and contended that the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, lacked jurisdiction because the judge was not a "Special Judge" as defined in Section 3 of the 1988 Act. He argued that the appointment of the judge under a notification issued purs

STATE THROUGH SPE & CBI, APversusM. KRISHNA MOHAN AND ANR.

2007 INSC 108912 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the Special Police Establishment and the CBI, appealed against the High Court's acquittal of a bank manager (M. Krishna Mohan) and a field officer for forging loan documents, forging thumb impressions and misappropriating loan proceeds. The trial court had convicted both, but the High Court se

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHAMBHOOGIRI

2004 INSC 59412 October 2004Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan prosecuted Constable Shambhoogiri for accepting a bribe of Rs.200 from a complainant, PW‑1, after the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) had taken a written complaint and the currency notes. The SDM noted the serial numbers of the notes, recovered them from the accused, prepared a recovery memo and

MAHENDRA LAL DASversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2001 INSC 50612 October 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Mahendra Lal Das, an executive engineer, was charged under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing disproportionate assets of Rs. 50,600. An FIR was lodged in 1988, but the investigating agency failed to obtain sanction for prosecution for more than 12 years, despite multiple

C. CHENGA REDDY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1996 INSC 72912 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, senior engineering officials and contractors, were convicted for alleged conspiracy, cheating and falsification of accounts in connection with jungle‑clearance projects in Nellore district, based solely on circumstantial evidence and a technical report prepared by a departmental officer during the inves

T. SHANKAR PRASADversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2004 INSC 3112 January 2004Dismissed

The appellants, T. Shankar Prasad (Assistant Commercial Tax Officer) and Ghaiz Basha (Junior Assistant), were convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and receiving a bribe to issue way‑bills. The complainant paid the demanded amount to the junior assistant

GAURI SHANKER SHARMA ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. ETC.

1990 INSC 712 January 1990Dismissed

The case concerned the death of Ram Dhiraj Tiwari while in police custody. The prosecution alleged that Sub‑Inspector Rafiuddin Khan (Accused No.1) beat the deceased with lathis and dandas after his arrest on 19 Oct 1971, causing 28 injuries that led to death, and also demanded a bribe. The defence claimed the arrest o

STATE OF U.P. THROUGH C.B.I. S.P.E. LUCKNOWversusR.K. SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER.

1989 INSC 24311 August 1989Disposed off

Two employees of a nationalised bank and two account‑holders were charged with conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption for allegedly withdrawing Rs.54,600 on the basis of false credit entries. The High Court quashed the proceedings against one employee, holding that the FIR, taken at face value, did not disclose a

NIRANJAN PATNAIKversusSASHIBHUSAN KAR & ANR.

1986 INSC 7311 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

N. Patnaik, a mine licensee, was a prosecution witness in a case where the senior mining officer was convicted for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction but harshly described Patnaik and the manager as bribe‑givers and accomplices, even suggesting

ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY ETC. ETC.versusR.S. NAYAK AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1991 INSC 32910 December 1991

The Supreme Court examined two writ petitions challenging prolonged criminal proceedings – one by former Maharashtra Chief Minister A.R. Antulay and another by advocate Ranjan Dwivedi – alleging violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that the right to a speed

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPOLLONJI DARABSHAW DARUWALLA

1987 INSC 32210 November 1987Dismissed

Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, a customs appraiser, was searched and found to possess assets allegedly disproportionate to his known income for the period 1‑April‑1958 to 31‑Dec‑1968. He was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (s.5(1)(e) read with s.5(2)) for criminal misconduct, but the High Court ac

G.M. TANKversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2006 INSC 31310 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

G.M. Tank, a Gujarat government servant, filed annual property returns that the department deemed disproportionate to his known income. The Anti‑Corruption Bureau investigated, filed a charge sheet alleging illegal accumulation of wealth, and a departmental enquiry found him guilty, resulting in his dismissal. The same

SH. P.K. DAVEversusPEOPLES UNION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (DELHI) AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67410 May 1996Dismissed

The petitioners, Peoples Union of Civil Liberties and others, filed a public‑interest writ seeking the suspension and criminal prosecution of Dr. Khalilullah, Director of G.B. Pant Hospital, alleging massive financial irregularities. The Delhi Health Secretary recommended his suspension, the Chief Secretary suggested h

MADHUKAR BHASKARRAO JOSHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2000 INSC 5139 November 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a Sub Engineer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, was caught in a police‑set trap accepting cash from a private contractor after demanding a sum for sanctioning additional power load. He claimed the money was a gift, not gratification. The trial court convicted him under Section 5(2) of the Prev

P.S. RAJYAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1996 INSC 6639 May 1996

P.S. Rajya, an Income‑Tax Officer, was charged under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to his income. A departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission, and later concurred by the UPSC and the President, exonerated him of the cha

DILAWAR SINGHversusPARVINDER SINGH@ IQBAL SINGH AND ANR.

2005 INSC 5548 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a public servant, Dilawar Singh, could be summoned and tried under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when no specific sanction under Section 19 had been obtained for him. The case arose from a complaint alleging extortion by police officials, leading to a charge‑

VISHNU NAGNATH DESHMUKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2000 INSC 5118 November 2000Disposed off

Vishnu Nagnath Deshmukh was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d)) and IPC section 161 for accepting an illegal gratification of Rs.10. The Special Judge sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which the Bombay High Court upheld. He appealed to the Supr

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ETC.versusV.K. SEHGAL AND ANR.

1999 INSC 4688 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI and the State of Haryana prosecuted V.K. Seghal, a public servant, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for receiving a bribe. The Special Judge convicted him and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Seghal appealed to the Punjab and Haryana H

RAJ DEO SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1998 INSC 3848 October 1998Appeal(s) allowed

R.D. Sharma was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for an offence alleged in an FIR dated 2 November 1982. After a charge‑sheet in 1985, the Special CBI Judge framed charges only in 1993 and, by June 1995, had examined merely three of the forty witnesses listed. Sharma filed a writ petition seeking qu

DILAWAR BALU KURANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2002 INSC 78 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lecturer of a private college affiliated to Shivaji University, was accused of accepting Rs. 400 to inflate a student's exam marks. An FIR was lodged seven days after the alleged incident, no incriminating material was seized, and witness statements were recorded ten months later. He was charged under

C.K. DAMODARAN NAIRversusGOVT. OF INDIA

1997 INSC 118 January 1997Dismissed

The appellant, a Provident Fund Inspector, was tried for accepting a bribe to exempt a hospital from statutory provident‑fund contributions under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge acquitted him, but the Kerala High Court set as

V.C. SHUKLAversusSTATE THROUGH C.B.I.

1979 INSC 2627 December 1979Dismissed

V.C. Shukla was charged under the Special Courts Act, 1979 and the Special Judge ordered that a charge be framed against him. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the order was merely an interlocutory one and that, under section 11(1) of the Act (which contains a non‑obstante clause), no appeal lies f

STATE OF U.PversusBHAIYA LAL VERMA

2008 INSC 7647 July 2008Case Allowed

Bhaiya Lal Verma, an accountant in the District Agriculture Office, was caught accepting a bribe of Rs.150 after a trap was laid by the District Magistrate. Marked currency notes were recovered from him and he was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the IPC, receivi

UNION OF INDIAversusPRAKASH P. HINDUJA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 3027 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from the Bofors scandal where the CBI filed charge‑sheets against Prakash P. Hinduja and others for offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused contended that the charge‑sheets were illegal because the CBI had not placed the investigation report before the Central Vigilance C

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusCHANDRABHAN TALE

1983 INSC 747 July 1983Disposed off

The case concerned three Maharashtra civil servants who, while under suspension, were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to imprisonment but remained on bail and were never actually incarcerated. Under Rule 151 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, a second proviso reduced their subsisten

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusDR. K. RAMCHANDRAN

1998 INSC 47 January 1998Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh imposed a 20% pension reduction on Dr. K. Ramchandran and refused to count his suspension as service. He challenged these orders before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which set them aside on the ground that, under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proc

PARKASH SINGH BADAL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2006 INSC 9606 December 2006Dismissed

The petitioners, including former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, challenged prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the IPC on the ground that no prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was obtained and that the complaints were filed with malafide intent. The Court examined the scope of

LALU PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI (AHD) PATNA

2006 INSC 9616 December 2006Dismissed

The appeals concerned the validity of a sanction to prosecute Lalu Prasad Yadav under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanction had been issued under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but was signed by the Secretary to the Government

L. NARAYANA SWAMYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2016 INSC 8566 September 2016Dismissed

The petitioners alleged that certain public officials abused their positions to facilitate a land transaction and sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court had dismissed the petition, holding that the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) C

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusWASUDEO RAMCHANDRA KAIDALWAR

1981 INSC 1096 May 1981Dismissed

The respondent, a Range Forest Officer earning Rs.515 per month, was found in possession of assets worth over Rs.79,000 and was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He claimed the assets belonged

R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

1995 INSC 8455 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed

R. Balakrishna Pillai, a former Kerala Minister for Electricity, was charged with criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120‑B) and an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act for supplying electricity to a private firm in Karnataka without the Kerala Government's consent. The Kerala High Court held that sanction under CrPC

C. RAVICHANDRAN IYERversusJUSTICE A.M. BHATTACHARJEE

1995 INSC 5375 September 1995Disposed off

The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking to restrain the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates' Association of Western India from pressuring the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, to resign an

BANARSI DASSversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 1935 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a patwari, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.400 for correcting land records, leading to his conviction under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution's case relied on the recovery of the money from the appellant's pocket and th

M. SUNDERAMOORTHYversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

1990 INSC 1235 April 1990Dismissed

S. Sundaramoorthy, an accountant‑cum‑head clerk in the Tamil Nadu Forest Training School, was accused of demanding and receiving a Rs 100 bribe from canteen contractor PW‑1 after promising to help restore the contractor's licence. A trap was arranged, the money was handed to the appellant, and a phenolphthalein test on

AMBI RAMversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019 INSC 1425 February 2019Case Partly allowed

Ambi Ram, a Patwari in Uttarakhand, accepted a bribe of Rs.1,200 in 1985 and was caught in a sting operation. He was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 161 of the IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000, with an additional three

ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusKRISHNARAO DUDHAPPA SHINDE

2009 INSC 1045 February 2009Case Partly allowed

Krishnarao Dudappa Shinde, a police inspector, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Bombay High Court acquitted him, holding that assets acquired before the Act’s commencement on 18‑December‑1964 could no

MUSTAFIKHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006 INSC 9454 December 2006Dismissed

The appellant, a junior engineer supervising irrigation tank construction under a government employment guarantee scheme, was alleged to have fabricated muster rolls showing payments to fictitious labourers, thereby misappropriating Rs 6,764.10. Evidence showed that the same 21 labourers were recorded as working simult

STATE THROUGH CBIversusRAJ KUMAR JAIN

1998 INSC 2814 August 1998Case Allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Raj Kumar Jain, a junior engineer, but after investigation found no prima facie case and submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC seeking closure. The Special Judge refused to accept the report, directi

KALICHARAN MAHAPATRAversusSTATE OF ORISSA

1998 INSC 2824 August 1998Dismissed

Kalicharan Mahapatra, a retired IPS officer, was charged under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possession of cash and jewellery discovered during a raid. He argued that, having retired before the charge‑sheet was filed, he could not be prosecuted because the Act required a prio

CHITIARANJAN DASversusSTATE OF ORISSA

2011 INSC 4434 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Deputy Secretary in the Orissa Administrative Service, was found to possess assets disproportionate to his known income. The State Vigilance Department sought sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but the State Government refused sanction while he was in service. Af

SAYYED SHABIRALLI HAFIZALIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2009 INSC 6634 May 2009Dismissed

The appellant, a Sub‑Engineer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs 100 as a bribe to issue a gate pass. The Supreme Court examined whether the gratification was "trivial" under Section 4 of the Act and

BALDEV SINGH DHINGRA AND OTHERSversusMADAN LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS

1999 INSC 404 February 1999Dismissed

The case concerned a former advocate who had become a judicial officer, was dismissed for corruption, and later sought to resume legal practice. After his resumption, members of the local bar objected and the Bar Council of India initiated disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging miscond

SWAPAN KUMAR CHATTERJEEversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2019 INSC 114 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a CBI investigation initiated in 1983 where the prosecution sought to examine a handwriting expert, H.S. Tuteja, as a material witness. Despite numerous summons and orders from the trial court and the Calcutta High Court over more than a decade, the expert never appeared, and the prosecution repeate

T. SUBRAMANIAMversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2006 INSC 104 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, T. Subramaniam, an executive officer of a temple, was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs.200 while allegedly facilitating the grant of a patta for temple land. He explained that the money was received on behalf of a third party, PW‑6, as payment of lease‑rent arrears due to the temple, and that the compl

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRASHID BABUBHAI MULANI

2006 INSC 114 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Rashid Babubhai Mulani, a talathi, demanded Rs 1,000 to delete a mortgagee's name from revenue records; the complainant paid Rs 300 after a trap was laid. Mulani accepted the marked notes and later claimed the payment was repayment of a government loan, supported by a purported notice sent by registered post. The High

R. JANAKIRAMANversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, SPE, MADRAS

2006 INSC 134 January 2006Dismissed

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer of Southern Railway, was found with Rs.2,94,615 in cash during a CBI raid and was charged under Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. He claimed the cash represented loans of Rs.2,50,000 from two mon

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSHYAMADAS BANERJEE & ANOTHER

2008 INSC 10093 September 2008Dismissed

The case concerned Shyamadas Banerjee, a sitting MLA who was alleged to have forged medical bills in 1999. Although the offence was committed while he was an MLA, he ceased to be a member of the State Legislature in July 2000, long before a charge‑sheet was filed in 2003 and cognizance was taken by a Special Judge unde

MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHANversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1997 INSC 6373 September 1997Appeal(s) allowed

M.V. Chauhan, a Divisional Accountant, was caught in a trap involving anthracene‑treated currency notes and was prosecuted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 IPC. The Gujarat High Court, on a writ petition, directed the Secretary of the Vigilance Commission to grant sanction fo

DEVINDER KUMAR BANSALversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 3203 March 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Devinder Kumar Bansal, an Audit Inspector, was alleged to have demanded and facilitated a bribe during an audit of development work while the complainant's wife served as Sarpanch, with co‑accused Prithvi Singh collecting the money on his behalf. An FIR was lodged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Co

Y. VENKAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P.

2009 INSC 2943 March 2009Dismissed

The appellants, who were public servants in the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Department, were accused of conspiring to withdraw government scholarship funds using fictitious student names, thereby cheating and misappropriating public money. They were charged under IPC sections 120‑B, 420, 468, 477‑A and Section 34 (co

MOHMOODKHAN MAHBOOBKHAN PATHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1997 INSC 873 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Sub‑Registrar, was convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for allegedly receiving Rs 60 as illegal gratification for issuing certified copies of sale deeds. The prosecution set up a trap and caught him taking the money, but the appel

SHANTILAL KASHIBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1992 INSC 2982 November 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a complaint that food inspectors demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000 for a food‑safety inspection. The complainant, after paying part of the amount, approached the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, which recorded the transaction in the presence of two Panch witnesses and used anthracene powder to detect the money on t

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSHRI RAMESH KUMAR

1997 INSC 6322 September 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Shri Ramesh Kumar, a government inspector, was arrested and convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for accepting illegal gratification. The disciplinary authority dismissed him under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the Vigilance Manual without a detailed e

STATE OF U.P.versusUDAI NARAYAN AND ANR.

1999 INSC 5041 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh prosecuted Udai Narain, an Additional Collector of Customs, and Reshamwala, a private individual, for allegedly receiving Rs.2 lakh in a corrupt transaction at Lucknow airport. They were charged under Sections 8, 10, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Secti

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusKESHAV RAMCHANDRA PANGARE AND ANR.

1999 INSC 5051 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent K.R. Pangare, a retired Deputy Engineer of the Maharashtra Public Works Department, was charged in 1990 with multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Although sanction for prosecution was obtained in August 1989, he challenged the criminal proceedings before the Bom

B.C. CHATURVEDIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 6611 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Income Tax Officer, was investigated by the CBI and found to hold assets disproportionate to his known income. Although the evidence was insufficient for criminal prosecution under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, a departmental inquiry proved the misconduct and dismissed him

DINESH DUIT JOSHIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

2001 INSC 4751 October 2001Disposed off

The appellant, Dinesh Dutt Joshi, was accused of demanding a bribe for providing an electric connection. The trial court discharged him, but the Rajasthan High Court, invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, set aside the discharge and ordered that charges be framed against him,

E. S. REDDIversusCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR.

1987 INSC 1451 May 1987Dismissed

The case concerned the suspension of IAS officer E.S. Reddi under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules, which he challenged on the ground of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging that similarly situated officers were merely transferred. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rever

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusP.V. PAVITHRAN

1990 INSC 691 March 1990Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh filed a criminal appeal against the quashing of an FIR registered against IPS officer P.V. Pavithran under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR was lodged on 8 March 1984, but the investigation report was filed only on 17 September 1987, leading the respondent to seek quashing of the FI

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search