Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

519 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusPADMANABHAN KISHORE

2022 INSC 114331 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) against Padmanabhan Kishore for allegedly handing over Rs 50 lakh as a bribe to an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Kishore contended that the money remained "untainted" while in his possession and only beca

STATE CBIversusSASHI BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ANR.

2006 INSC 77131 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from allegations of irregularities in the grant of an advance licence for import of cotton fabrics, leading to a criminal complaint against a company, its directors and four public servants under the IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and Customs Act. The company and its directors filed a declaration unde

INDRA VIJAY ALOKversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 62031 August 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a Patwari, was accused of demanding bribes to effect a mutation of land records. The complainant testified that the Patwari first demanded Rs.1900, of which Rs.900 was paid by his mother, and later demanded an additional Rs.1000, which the complainant paid and was later recovered from the Patwari during

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 An FIR was lodged in 1990 under the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the trial court

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHIversusAJAY KUMAR TYAGI

2012 INSC 36531 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of NCT of Delhi and Ajay Kumar Tyagi were simultaneously facing criminal prosecution under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a departmental inquiry for the same alleged bribe. The departmental enquiry officer found the charge not proved, but the disciplinary authority had not yet rende

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusN. SANJAY

2025 INSC 97331 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to N. Sanjay, an IPS officer who was Additional Director General of Police, CID, and Director General of the State Disaster Response and Fire Services, alleging misappropriation of public funds through irregular tenders and c

BAIRAM MURALIDHARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2014 INSC 51231 July 2014Dismissed

The appellant, Sub‑Inspector Bairam Muralidhar, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding bribes. The public prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 of the CrPC to withdraw the prosecution, relying solely on a Government order directing withdrawal. Both the trial court and the High Cour

SYED AHMEDversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2012 INSC 31231 July 2012Dismissed

The appellant, a police officer, was alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Nagaraja (PW1) in exchange for inquiring into a complaint. The prosecution presented testimony of Nagaraja and two independent trap witnesses, corroborating the transaction of tainted currency notes, while the trial co

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusMOHAMMED IQBAL BHATTI

2009 INSC 98831 July 2009Dismissed

The respondent, a Block Development and Panchayat Officer, faced an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State, through the Minister, initially refused sanction for prosecution on 15‑12‑2002/2003. After a change of government, the same authority granted sanction on 14‑9‑2004 without any new material being pl

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusJIYALAL

2009 INSC 97731 July 2009Disposed off

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed after a Special Judge convicted Jiyalal under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the sanction order from the District Magistrate was given mechanically, lacked reasons, and was not proved becau

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusRAJMANGAL RAM

2014 INSC 23431 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar appealed against two orders of the Patna High Court that had stayed criminal prosecutions of public servants on the ground that the Law Department, rather than the parent department, had granted the required sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supre

DALCO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD.versusSHREE SATISH PRABHAKAR PADHYE AND ORS.

2010 INSC 18331 March 2010

The case concerned two writ petitions challenging the termination of a disabled employee by a private limited company and the termination of a contract with a public trust. Both petitioners sought relief under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusC. UMA MAHESWARA RAO AND ANR.

2004 INSC 21931 March 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the acquittal of two public servants who were members of a tender opening committee and were alleged to have demanded and accepted Rs 5,000 each as gratification for clearing a tender file. The complainant lodged a police complaint and was caught in a trap; the money was recovered.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusYOGENDRA SINGH JADON & ANR.

2020 INSC 12431 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a criminal appeal against Yogendra Singh Jadon and Harshvardhan Singh Jadon, alleging that they obtained cash credit facilities from District Cooperative Kendriya Bank through their father, the former President of the bank, without proper documentation, constituting fraud and conspirac

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusDR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

2012 INSC 5931 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed a representation with the Prime Minister seeking sanction to prosecute the then Minister of Communications, A. Raja, for alleged corruption in the 2G spectrum allocation. After repeated reminders and a CBI FIR was registered 16 months later, the Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition,

BHISHAM LAL VERMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 95530 October 2023Dismissed

The petitioner, a project director, was charged under several IPC offences and the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the government sanctioned prosecution, a charge sheet was filed and the trial court took cognizance. In 2018 the petitioner filed a Section 482 CrPC petition challenging only the sanction order, which

MANISH SISODIAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2023 INSC 95630 October 2023Dismissed

Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking bail in prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Penal Code and an enforcement case under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002. The Court examined the scope of bail under s.45 of the PMLA, h

STATE OF MIZORAMversusDR. C. SANGNGHINA

2018 INSC 101930 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Mizoram filed a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that Dr. C. Sangnghina had misappropriated public funds. The Special Court discharged him in 2013 because the prosecution sanction was issued by an authority not competent to grant it. The Governor later issued a valid sanction in D

SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2013 INSC 66330 September 2013Disposed off

The petitioners, accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, had their trial transferred to Karnataka where the Supreme Court directed the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP). After a seven‑month tenure, the Karnataka Government withdrew the a

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusR. JEEVARATNAM

2004 INSC 41230 July 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, then Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, was alleged to have demanded and received a bribe to clear a tender file in favour of a company. The complainant reported the demand to the CBI, which laid a trap; the respondent was caught exiting a hotel room with marked currency. The trial court convicted h

SHOBHAN SINGH KHANKAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2012 INSC 15430 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an academic expert appointed to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission interview board, was named in an FIR alleging large‑scale manipulation of marks and conspiracy with JPSC officials. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected by both the

MANISH TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2013 INSC 72829 October 2013Dismissed

Manish Trivedi, an elected municipal councillor and member of the Banswara Municipal Board, was charged under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe in connection with a kiosk allotment. He contended that, as an elected official, he was not a "public servant" and thus could no

ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 70629 September 2015Dismissed

Essar Teleholdings Ltd. and other petitioners challenged a Delhi High Court order and a Delhi government notification that appointed a Special Judge to try all offences, including those under the Indian Penal Code, arising from the 2G spectrum scam. They sought a joint trial of the main case and a second supplementary

STATE OF GOAversusBABU THOMAS

2005 INSC 45729 September 2005Disposed off

The State of Goa prosecuted Babu Thomas, a Joint Manager of Goa Shipyard Ltd., under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification from a contractor. Two sanction orders were issued—one by the Company Secretary and another by the Chairman and Managing Director—both without the requisite approval

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusDNYANESHWAR LAXMAN RAO WANKHEDE

2009 INSC 96429 July 2009Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra appealed the acquittal of Head Constable Dnyaneswar Laxman Rao Wankhede, who was convicted by a Special Judge for demanding illegal gratification under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution’s case rested on two panch witnesses; one died during trial and the sur

NARENDRA CHAMPAKLAL TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2012 INSC 25129 May 2012Dismissed

The appellants, Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and Harjibhai Devjibhai Chauhan, were accused of demanding and accepting a Rs.50 bribe for providing a survey report. The trial court and the Gujarat High Court convicted them under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and imposed the statutory minimum sentence

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

RAJESH GUPTAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2022 INSC 35929 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior Income Tax officer, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.15,000 from the complainant, Madhu Bala, during a CBI‑operated trap. The prosecution relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony and on the recovery of currency notes

BINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2011 INSC 23429 March 2011Dismissed

The case concerned a multi‑crore iron‑ore mining lease scam involving former ministers of Jharkhand, including a former chief minister, with allegations of illicit wealth amassed through abuse of official position. The High Court, noting the complexity and trans‑national nature of the alleged investments, referred the

K. KARUNAKARANversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 16729 March 2000Dismissed

During K. Karunakaran's tenure as Chief Minister, the Kerala State Supplies Corporation entered into a contract for importing palmolein, which was later alleged to be corrupt. A petition under Article 226 seeking registration of a criminal case was dismissed by the High Court, and a subsequent FIR filed by an oppositio

HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 15029 February 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the object of interim order

BECHAARBHAI S. PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2008 INSC 27329 February 2008Disposed off

Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati, a police sub‑inspector, stopped a luxury bus carrying a marriage party and demanded payment for the release of the bus documents. The Anti‑Corruption Bureau arranged a trap using anthracene‑powder‑marked currency notes, which the officer accepted and concealed in his trouser pocket. The marked

STATE OF HARYANAversusSURJIT SINGH

2008 INSC 136028 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Surjit Singh, was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted under Section 13(2). The State of Haryana sought leave to appeal the acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the application witho

ROMESH LAL JAINversusNAGINDER SINGH RANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 54028 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a FIR lodged by a Sub‑Inspector (the respondent) against M/s Jain Gas Agency under the Essential Commodities Act, which the appellant claimed was false and alleged that the officer had misappropriated gas cylinders and accepted a bribe. The Special Judge directed the investigating officer to obtain

K.P. SINGHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2015 INSC 70428 September 2015Case Partly allowed

K.P. Singh was convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting a bribe of about Rs 700 and was sentenced by the trial court to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. The High Court reduced the imprisonment term to one year (with a two‑month default sentence) but uphel

K.RADHAIversusC.B.I., COCHIN UNIT

2007 INSC 98328 September 2007

The appellant, a clerk in Syndicate Bank, was found to have opened a false bank account and fraudulently withdrawn Rs.42,000. She was charged under IPC sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (s.13(1)(d) read with s.13(2)). The trial court convicted her and sentenced her to two year

K. SUBBA REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2007 INSC 98728 September 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved an Excise Sub‑Inspector (A‑1) who demanded a bribe from shop owner K. Subba Reddy (PW‑1) to release sealed stock and a stock register. PW‑1 paid the demanded amount to a Home Guard (A‑2), who kept the money in his pocket and was later found with the cash, which tested positive for the phenolphthalein

IN RE: MEPUNG TADAR BAGE, MEMBER, ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus

2025 INSC 104728 August 2025Reference answered

The President of India referred a matter under Article 317(1) of the Constitution seeking the removal of Ms. Mepung Tadar Bage, a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), alleging misbehaviour in connection with the leakage of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Mains Examination question paper in

SHIV KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2022 INSC 76528 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly manipulating measurement books and causing excess payment in school construction works. The prosecution alleged that he reduced

THE STATE OF KERALAversusK. AJITH & ORS.

2021 INSC 36628 July 2021Dismissed

During the 2015 Kerala budget presentation, several opposition MLAs climbed onto the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture, leading to a criminal case under IPC sections 427, 447, 34 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The public prosecutor sought to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of t

N.S. GNANESHWARAN ETC.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

2025 INSC 78728 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were charged under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly diverting bank funds. Parallel civil recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were settled through a One Time Settlement (OTS) in which the ba

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH C.B.I.versusMAHESH G. JAIN

2013 INSC 36028 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI investigated a complaint that Mahesh G. Jain, an SBI clerk, demanded and accepted a Rs.1,000 bribe to issue TDS certificates and was caught in a trap operation. The investigating agency obtained a sanction order from the competent authority and filed a charge‑sheet under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Preventio

STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusHEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.

2023 INSC 46028 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated alleged disproportionate assets of D. Dwarakanadha Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, filed a closure report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2008, and the Special Judge accepted it. In 2013 the CBI obtain

KANWARJIT SINGH KAKKARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2011 INSC 33928 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Two government doctors were alleged to have engaged in private practice after hours, charging Rs 100 per patient, in violation of a government circular that prohibited such practice without permission. An FIR was lodged under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section

A.C. MUTHIAHversusBOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 33728 April 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, a former President of the BCCI, challenged an amendment to Clause 6.2.4 of the BCCI's Regulations that exempted IPL, Champions League and Twenty‑20 events from the ban on administrators having commercial interests. He argued that the amendment was made to benefit the second respondent, who as a BCCI offi

STATE OF PUNJABversusNIRMAL KAUR

2009 INSC 63128 April 2009Dismissed

Nirmal Kaur, who operated a coaching centre, was charged under several IPC offences and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court framed charges under the Act, but the High Court quashed them, holding that she was not a public servant. The State appealed,

B. JAYARAJversusSTATE OF A.P.

2014 INSC 22028 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Mandal Revenue Officer, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 250 for the release of essential commodities to a fair‑price shop owner (the complainant). The trial court and the High Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19

R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRversusTHE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE & ANR.

2011 INSC 22628 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

R. Ramachandran Nair, the first Vice‑Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, was accused of obtaining a pecuniary advantage while overseeing earth‑filling of university land. An FIR was lodged in 1996 and a charge‑sheet filed after an 8½‑year delay, without obtaining the prior sanction of the Universit

MRS. NEERAJ DUTTAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2019 INSC 29128 February 2019Matter referred to larger bench

Mrs. Neeraj Dutta, an LDC of Delhi Vidyut Board, allegedly demanded a bribe from Ravijit Singh Sethi for installation of an electricity meter. The complainant paid Rs 10,000, which was later recovered from the accused and the money tested positive by phenolphthalein test. The complainant died before trial, so his testi

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

OM KR. DHANKARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2012 INSC 11428 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a transport operator, complained that a Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (respondent No.2) demanded payment of passenger tax at his residence, received Rs. 2 lakh, and released the appellant's impounded buses, allegedly cheating him and embezzling public money. The Judicial Magistrate issued a sum

R.P.S. YADAVversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 95828 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Municipal Corporation of Delhi employee, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.1,500 for issuing a licence. The CBI organised a trap involving the complainant, a shadow witness and a middle‑man who handed over the money, after which it was recovered. The trial court and the Delhi High Court convicted

VINOD KUMAR GARGversusSTATE (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI)

2019 INSC 128727 November 2019Dismissed

Inspector Vinod Kumar Garg was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500 from Nand Lal in exchange for facilitating an electricity connection to a shed, with the money recovered from his pant pocket during a police trap. The appellant appealed, alleging material contradictions in the testimonies of the co

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 91327 November 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a Public Interest Litigation concerning the Taj Heritage Corridor project, which alleged irregularities and unauthorized release of Rs. 17 crore. The Court had earlier ordered a CBI inquiry and later directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate senior officials. The Director of CBI sub

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusNARSINGRAO GANGARAM PIMPLE

1984 INSC 20127 October 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.2000 from a complainant (Rege) to suppress a case under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The prosecution proved the transaction through eyewitnesses, an ultraviolet powder test on the money and the accused's clothing, and the fact t

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSH. B.K. MEENA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 112327 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan initiated disciplinary proceedings against IAS officer B.K. Meena for alleged misappropriation of Rs 1.05 crore, while a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also filed. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) stayed the disciplinary enquiry pending the criminal trial,

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.versusKEMPAIAH

1998 INSC 27327 July 1998Dismissed

The State of Karnataka appealed against the High Court’s order allowing a writ petition filed by IPS officer Kempaiah, who challenged a preliminary inquiry by the Upalokayukta into allegations of amassing wealth. The Supreme Court examined whether the term "action" in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 i

STATE OF GUJARATversusMANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH

2020 INSC 36627 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed the discharge of Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, a trustee of Sumandeep Charitable Trust which runs a deemed university, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge sheet alleged that Shah demanded Rs 20 lakhs to allow a student to appear for examinations, constituting a corrupt p

K. ANBAZHAGANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKAAND OTHERS

2015 INSC 32327 April 2015Disposed off

The case arose from the transfer of a corruption trial involving J. Jayalalithaa from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. Karnataka appointed Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor for the trial, but Tamil Nadu later attempted to authorize him to appear before the Karnataka High Court for the appeal. The Supreme Court held th

STATE OF M.P.versusVIRENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI

2009 INSC 61127 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh charged Virendra Kumar Tripathi, a former Forest Department ranger, under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Tripathi contended that the investigation was conducted by an unauthorised officer and t

V.K.PURIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2007 INSC 48027 April 2007Dismissed

V.K. Puri, a customs officer, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (s.13(2) read with s.13(1)(e)) for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the 1988‑2002 check period. He owned bank accounts and immovable property in Delhi, the rental income from a Delhi flat being

MANJU SURANAversusSUNIL ARORA & ORS.

2018 INSC 27827 March 2018Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging corruption in a drinking‑water project and sought investigation and FIR registration against several public servants, including the first respondent who was incorrectly described as Principal Secretary, PHED. The Special Judge dismiss

P.C. MISHRAversusSTATE (C.B.I.) & ANR.

2014 INSC 21527 March 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an application by the CBI for a pardon under s.306 CrPC in a corruption investigation where the offence was triable by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted the pardon to the co‑accused during the investigation, a decision later challenged b

SURAIN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2009 INSC 7427 January 2009Case Partly allowed

Surain Singh, a Patwari, demanded Rs 300 as illegal gratification for entering a mutation entry and was caught red‑handed. He was convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. On appeal he claimed that the complainant bore a personal grudge an

THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA

2024 INSC 92826 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order acquitting a government servant, Chandrasha, who was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 2,000 to facilitate the encashment of surrender‑leave

JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 91126 September 2016Disposed off

Jagdish Narain Shukla filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the implementation of a Lokayukta report that alleged corruption by former minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui and former MLC Husna Siddiqui, claiming they had purchased assets at undervalued prices using income from unknown sources. The Lokayukta, under S

LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI, JHARKHAND

2003 INSC 42126 August 2003Dismissed

The appellants, former Chief Ministers of Bihar, sought a joint trial and transfer of six corruption and conspiracy cases pending before various Special Judges in Jharkhand. They argued that a single conspiracy linked the cases, with common witnesses and documents, and that separate trials would cause undue hardship. T

A. SUBAIRversusSTATE OF KERALA

2009 INSC 83826 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

A. Subair, a lower‑division clerk in a Kerala transport office, was accused of demanding Rs.25 as a bribe for issuing a driving licence in book form. The prosecution set up a trap, recovered currency notes of Rs.20 and Rs.5, and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On a

RITU CHHABARIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 43626 April 2023Disposed off

The petitioner sought the release of her husband, who had been repeatedly remanded in custody despite the filing of multiple supplementary chargesheets that did not complete the investigation. The core issue was whether a chargesheet can be filed piecemeal before the investigation is finished and whether such filing ex

N. RAMAMURTHYversusSTATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A.C.B., BENGALURU

2019 INSC 58226 April 2019Disposed off

N. Ramamurthy was convicted under several IPC provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to multiple terms, the trial court directing that all sentences run concurrently, resulting in a maximum imprisonment of seven years. He filed applications under Section 389 of the CrPC seeking suspension of the

NAVEEN KAUSHIKversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2018 INSC 41826 April 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a series of criminal appeals and special leave petitions filed by Naveen Kaushik against the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The principal issue concerned the interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act, which the Court revisited in light of its re

STATE THROUGH CBL/ACB, HYDERABAD A.P.versusDHARMANA PRASED RAO

2016 INSC 34326 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State (CBI) filed a charge‑sheet against fourteen accused, including the respondent, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Court initially deferred taking cognizance of the respondent, directing the investigating officer to obtain a sanction order

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

RAMBHAU AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2001 INSC 23126 April 2001Dismissed

The appellant, a Sub‑Inspector of Police, and a co‑accused were tried under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court acquitted them, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them, citing that the demand for illegal gratification on 24 January 1989 had not bee

BALDEV SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2014 INSC 92826 February 2014Disposed off

Baldev Singh, a 62‑year‑old retired official, demanded Rs 2,000 from an agriculturist for an early allocation of canal water, which was settled at Rs 1,000. The complainant handed the money to Singh in his house; the cash was later recovered from beneath files and the notes were tallied after washing Singh's hands in s

MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD .versusPRAKASH KAUR AND ORS.

2007 INSC 21326 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, Prakash Kaur, had taken a hire‑purchase loan from ICICI Bank for a truck and defaulted on instalments. The bank, through its agent Kartik Associates, forcibly seized the vehicle. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking registration of a FIR against the bank and police for alleged criminal offences

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND ORS.versusRAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY

2020 INSC 65625 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a Sub‑Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, Rajendra Kumar Dubey, who was compulsorily retired on 5 December 2007 for gross neglect of duty relating to theft of railway property. Dubey challenged the retirement in a writ petition, and the Bombay High Court set aside the order, reinstating him wi

C.M. SHARMAversusSTATE OF A.P. TH. I.P.

2010 INSC 81525 November 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a Deputy Chief Engineer of South Central Railway, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.3,000 from a contractor after passing the contractor's final bill. A pre‑trap operation was conducted by the CBI, during which the contractor, a shadow‑witness, and the CBI inspector observed the appell

K.R. PURUSHOTHAMANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2005 INSC 52225 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the alleged misappropriation of gold used to make a temple ornament (Golaka) by officials of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The prosecution claimed that the assistant commissioner (appellant) conspired with a Devaswom officer (A‑3) to fraudulently divert pure gold, and that the appellant either misapprop

PUBLIC INTEREST FOUNDATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 86225 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether it could compel Parliament to enact a law disqualifying candidates against whom serious criminal charges have been framed and whether it could direct the Election Commission to deny such candidates the use of a party's reserved symbol. The Court held that disqualification is a matter

VIVEK GUPTAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR .

2003 INSC 51225 September 2003Dismissed

Vivek Gupta conspired with two State Bank of India officers to cheat the bank, causing substantial loss. All three were charged under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC, while the two officers were additionally charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). The trial was before a Special Judge a

SATYA NARAYAN SHARMAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2001 INSC 45525 September 2001Dismissed

The appellant was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the IPC, and obtained a stay of trial by filing a petition under CrPC Section 482 in the Rajasthan High Court, which was used to delay the trial for seven years. The High Court dismissed the petition, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Co

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusR. SHANKARAPPA

2025 INSC 89825 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a former Sub‑Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunication, was convicted in two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and faced parallel disciplinary proceedings for a trap case and for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Two charge‑sheets were issued un

NARINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2014 INSC 50925 July 2014Dismissed

The appellant, Narinder Singh, was accused of offering a bribe of Rs.10,000 to the Additional District Magistrate of Bharmour to obtain supply orders for double‑decker beds. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court set aside that judgment, convicted him under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198

MUKUT BIHARI & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2012 INSC 25025 May 2012Dismissed

Mukut Bihari and another were accused of demanding a Rs.100 bribe for issuing a discharge ticket in a hospital. A trap was organised, the complainant handed the money to the accused, and both were arrested. The trial court convicted them under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Se

ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY P. LTD. AND ANR.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2018 INSC 41325 April 2018Disposed off

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Ltd. and another appealed to the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court order that stayed the framing of a charge under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The principal issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant such a stay in a challenge to th

STATE OF KERALAversusM.M. MANIKANTAN NAIR

2001 INSC 22525 April 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Secretary of a Gram Panchayat was prosecuted for offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution, arguing that no sanction under Section 122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act was obtained. The High Court first dismissed the petition on 3

KUNGA NIMA LEPCHA & ORS.versusSTATE OF SIKKIM & ORS.

2010 INSC 16625 March 2010Dismissed

Four members of a political party filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that the Chief Minister of Sikkim had amassed assets disproportionate to his known income and misappropriated public funds. They sought a mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to launch

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusMUKESH POONAMCHAND SHAH

2020 INSC 22425 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) issued a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of its 1960 Staff Regulations seeking removal of employee Mukesh Poonamchand Shah after his conviction by a Special CBI Judge for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. Shah challenged

JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD ) & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2014 INSC 12525 February 2014Case Allowed

A complaint alleging irregularities in construction works at the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was investigated by the Lokayukt, which referred the matter to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Vidhan Sabha Secretary issued letters claiming a breach of legislative privilege

ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIAversusSTATE OF SIKKIM

2011 INSC 16225 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a senior police officer in Sikkim, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He submitted a detailed statement of his assets (Exhibit D‑4) after the FIR, but the prosecution alleged a much larger unexplained amount and

M/S. SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.

2015 INSC 85524 November 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals filed by M/s Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills and other assessees against the Commissioner of Central Excise. The core issues were whether Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules could levy interest and a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount when Secti

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusASHOK SIRPAL

2024 INSC 81924 October 2024Disposed off

Ashok Sirpal was convicted under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for embezzling Rs 46 lakhs and was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment (concurrent) and a fine of Rs 95 lakhs, with a default term of simple imprisonment for non‑payment of the fine. He appealed to the Delhi High Court, which suspe

NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 107724 September 2019Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether the phrase “any property” in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes immovable property. It held that the provision confers power only to seize movable property, as the word “seize” implies taking physical custody, which is impossible for immovable assets. The Cou

SOMABHAI GOPALBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2014 INSC 63824 September 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a village Talati, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.250 from a complainant seeking official documents. During an anti‑corruption raid, anthracene powder tests on the accused's pocket and the recovered currency notes corroborated the demand and acceptance. The trial court convicted him

PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINHAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2022 INSC 86024 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Executive Engineer of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), was accused of financial irregularities and fraud in connection with the implementation of an arbitration award favoring Ramjee Power Construction Limited (RPCL). The prosecution alleged that he prepared an agenda for appointing an ar

STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAMversusSURYA SANKARAM KARRI

2006 INSC 54224 August 2006Dismissed

The respondent, a Chief Commercial Inspector of the South Eastern Railway, was convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The conviction was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was granted by

NANJAPPAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 52124 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Nanjappa, a bill collector in a Karnataka gram panchayat, was accused of demanding a Rs 500 bribe for a resolution copy. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge and that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was invalid. Th

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

DASHRATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2025 INSC 65424 April 2025Case Partly allowed

Dashrath was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe. He challenged the conviction on four grounds: the sanction to prosecute was mechanically granted, the investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police contrary to Sect

JITENDRA KUMAR RODEversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 41924 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Jitendra Kumar Rode, a former Assistant Commercial Manager of Northern Railway, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting a bribe in 1995. The trial court’s record was subsequently lost, and only a partial, reconstructed set of documents was produced, which did not include essential witne

RAJAT PRASADversusC.B.I

2014 INSC 31824 April 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal filed by Rajat Prasad and Arvind Vijay Mohan, who were charged under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120‑B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly conspiring to conduct a sting operation that exposed a Union Minister taking a bribe. The

ANJAN1 KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2008 INSC 52324 April 2008Case Allowed

The appellant, a public servant, conducted a raid on a medical shop and seized medicines, later filing an FIR against respondent No.2. In retaliation, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging the appellant had committed offences under IPC sections 161, 167, 465, 466, 469 and 471. The District Magistrate issued a san

SUBASH PARBAT SONVANEversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2002 INSC 22124 April 2002Case Partly allowed

Subash Parbat Sonvane, a public servant, was convicted by a Special Judge in Ahmedabad under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for taking money from a complainant. The Gujarat High Court upheld both convictions. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the

CHARANSINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 20724 March 2021Dismissed

A complaint was lodged alleging that Charansinh, then President of a municipal council, had amassed assets disproportionate to his known income, invoking Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Anti‑Corruption Bureau (ACB) issued a notice directing him to appear for an "open enquiry" and to furnish de

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusMADHUKAR WAMANRAO SMARTH

2008 INSC 39124 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra convicted several respondents, including Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth, for cheating, forgery, abetment, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy, imposing consecutive sentences totalling twelve years. The respondents appealed and sought bail by suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of

HIRALAL BABULAL SONIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 26624 February 2025Disposed off

The case involved a fraud scheme where fake telegraphic transfers were used to withdraw Rs. 6.7 crore from a bank, the proceeds of which were allegedly used to purchase 205 gold bars that were later seized from accused Nandkumar Babulal Soni. The trial court convicted Soni under Sections 120B and 411 of the IPC, direct

C.M. GIRISH BABUversusC.B.I. COCHIN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

2009 INSC 24324 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, C.M. Girish Babu, and another accused were tried for demanding and accepting a bribe under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for criminal conspiracy under IPC s.1208. The trial court convicted them; the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction under s.7 but acqui

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 5824 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet on 15 October 2022 against 75 persons, including Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan, for alleged conspiracy, fraud and corruption involving DHFL. The respondents applied for default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC, arguing that the char

SANJAY CHANDRAversusCBI

2011 INSC 81923 November 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals by Sanjay Chandra and 16 co‑accused who were denied bail by the Special CBI Judge and the Delhi High Court in a telecom‑licence fraud case involving alleged loss of billions to the State. The appellants argued that the investigation was complete, the charge‑sheet filed, and there wa

YOGARANIversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2024 INSC 72123 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (accused No.2) was convicted under IPC s.420 and the Passports Act for allegedly facilitating the illegal issuance of a second passport to accused No.1, who already possessed a passport. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three witnesses, including a hostile employee and a handwriting expert, but

AB. BHASKARA RAOversusINSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI VISAKHAPATNAM

2011 INSC 70823 September 2011Dismissed

A.B. Bhaskara Rao, a railway head clerk, demanded and accepted Rs 200 as illegal gratification for a transfer order on 14 Nov 1997 and was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was convicted by a Special Judge and sentenced to six months rigorous

GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusP. VENKU REDDY

2002 INSC 40423 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and a District Co-operative Central Bank appealed a High Court order that had quashed a criminal case against P. Venku Reddy for alleged acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had held that Reddy was not a "public servant" within the meaning o

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 62323 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appeals challenge the Special Judge’s order on charge (24‑12‑2021) and charge‑framing order (03‑03‑2022) against Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Ltd (KECML) and its former MD for alleged conspiracy to illegally sell coal washery rejects. The Court examined whether the CBI’s investigation was predicated solely on the 2013

GIRISH SHARMA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

2017 INSC 79723 August 2017Disposed off

An FIR was lodged for corruption and a charge‑sheet was filed against 16 persons, while three individuals—Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet Ram Yadav—were recorded as witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and not named as accused. Some of the accused applied under Sections 193/319 to have these thre

PARVINDER SINGH KHURANAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 54623 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was granted regular bail by a Special Court on 17 June 2023 in a PMLA case, after which the Enforcement Directorate sought cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC. The Delhi High Court, without hearing the appellant’s counsel, issued an ex‑parte interim stay of the bail order on 23 June 2023

B.S.GORAYAversusU.T. OF CHANDIGARH

2007 INSC 77223 July 2007Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge‑sheet against B.S. Goraya under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Goraya, then a Colonel, was suspended and dismissed from Army service in January 1993, but his dismissal was later set aside and he was reinstated. He contended that,

JOGINDER PAL & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2014 INSC 40823 May 2014Case Partly allowed

The Punjab Public Service Commission’s chairman was found to have taken bribes and manipulated the recruitment of executive, allied services and judicial officers between 1998‑2002. Consequently, the State terminated the services of all appointed officers. The High Court upheld the termination, treating the entire sele

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAKESH MISHRA

2015 INSC 24423 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court’s order that set aside the trial court’s decision to frame charges against three municipal officials accused of corruptly granting building and completion certificates for Sayaji Hotel. The officials were alleged to have conspired to issue a revised building p

PANKAJ JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2018 INSC 19823 February 2018Disposed off

Pankaj Jain, accused in a CBI case involving serious offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, was issued a non‑bailable warrant and proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC. He voluntarily appeared before the Special Judge, CBI, and sought release on a bond under section 88 of the Code of Cr

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELLversusRAMESH GELLI AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 13423 February 2016Case Partly allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation appealed against orders that held the Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director and Executive Director of Global Trust Bank (a private bank before its 2004 amalgamation with Oriental Bank of Commerce) were not public servants for purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The

THANA SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

2013 INSC 5623 January 2013Disposed off

Thana Singh, an undertrial accused of an offence under the NDPS Act, had been detained for over twelve years without trial despite repeated bail refusals. The Supreme Court examined whether such prolonged detention violated the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on earlier decisions tha

SHRI RAJENDRA RAMCHANDRA KAVALEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2009 INSC 5723 January 2009Disposed off

The appellant, Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar, was accused of obtaining a forged degree from Ranchi University in collusion with university officials and using it to secure employment with ITDC. The CBI filed a case in Ranchi, Jharkhand, under sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d

STATE THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, RAICHURversusC. N. MANJUNATH

2016 INSC 104822 November 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a licensed surveyor appointed under Section 18A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 qualifies as a "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent, C.N. Manjunath, performed statutory duties of preparing survey sketches, a function pre

C.B.I.versusASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL

2013 INSC 77822 November 2013Dismissed

The CBI filed a case against Ashok Kumar Aggarwal for possessing disproportionate assets and obtained sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent challenged the validity of the sanction, alleging that material was not placed before the Finance Minister and that th

RAKESH KAPOORversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2012 INSC 53522 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Divisional Tourism Development Officer, was charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and accepting a Rs.10,000 bribe to grant a hotel licence. The trial court convicted him on both counts, but the High Court set aside the conviction under Sect

DINESH KUMARversusCHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 81322 November 2011Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar was prosecuted under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after a sanction order was issued on 4 November 2009. He challenged the sanction in the High Court, but the CBI filed a charge‑sheet and the Special Judge took cognizance while the sanction was still under

BANGARU LAXMANversusSTATE (THROUGH CBI) & ANOTHER

2011 INSC 81422 November 2011Dismissed

Bangaru Laxman appealed against the order of a Special Judge that granted pardon to an accomplice (respondent No.2) before the charge‑sheet was filed. The appellant argued that the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) lacked jurisdiction to grant pardon at the investigation stage and that

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAMversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2019 INSC 117622 October 2019Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram under Sections 120B, 420 IPC and Sections 8, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged irregularities in the FIPB clearance of INX Media. After his arrest, the Delhi High Court refused regular bail, cit

NIRMAL SINGH KAHLONversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2008 INSC 121122 October 2008Dismissed

A writ petition challenged the selection of Panchayat Secretaries and alleged irregularities involving the former Rural Development Minister, Nirmal Singh Kahlon. The High Court, after a prima facie finding of fraud, directed an inquiry which led to a Vigilance Department FIR and charge‑sheet. The Court then ordered th

STATE OF PUNJABversusKARNAIL SINGH

2008 INSC 107022 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Karnail Singh, was a Manager of the Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, a co‑operative bank. The trial court framed charges against him under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging he was a "public servant". He filed a criminal revision petition, and the Punjab and Ha

RAM GOPALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEHRADUN

2019 INSC 79122 July 2019Dismissed

The CBI investigated a 1992 fraud where a fictitious bank account was opened in the name of Raj Kumar, deposits of Rs 3,22,056 were forged into it and withdrawn through seventeen cheques, leaving a small balance. Two bank employees, Ram Gopal (messenger) and Pankaj Kumar Jain (assistant clerk), were later charged and c

SHYAM NARAIN PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

2014 INSC 50022 July 2014Dismissed

Shyam Narain Pandey, a school principal, was convicted under IPC sections 147, 148, 302/144 read with 120B and sentenced to life imprisonment. He applied for a stay of his conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the conviction would deprive him of his livelihood, but the High Cou

KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2025 INSC 76822 May 2025

The appellant challenged the arrest of his son, Kessireddy Raja Shekhar Reddy, alleging that the police failed to provide appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, thereby violating Article 22 of the Constitution. The son was arrested on 21 April 2025 by the CID in connection with offences under Sections 420, 409,

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusRAMESH CHANDER DIWAN

2025 INSC 53922 April 2025Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appealed against the High Court's order discharging Ramesh Chander Diwan of offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC, on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been obtained. Diwan, originally appointed by the Governmen

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANRversusUMESH

2022 INSC 32222 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Umesh, a village accountant in Karnataka, was criminally charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe. He was acquitted by a Special Judge, but a disciplinary enquiry under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and the Karnataka Civil Services Rules found him guilty of misconduct and imposed c

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN

2008 INSC 24322 February 2008Case Allowed

The accused, Rajendra Prasad Jain, was acquitted by a Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of a bribe. The State of Rajasthan filed an application under Section 378(1) of the Code o

P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2023 INSC 84421 September 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a Sub Registrar, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs.1500 as gratification. The complainant had died before trial, and the prosecution relied on pre‑trap and post‑trap witnesses and documentary evidence t

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABADversusK. NARAYANA RAO

2012 INSC 41821 September 2012Dismissed

The CBI investigated a scheme in which bank officials and private individuals defrauded Vijaya Bank of Rs 1.27 crore by sanctioning housing loans. K. Narayana Rao, a panel advocate for the bank, was charged as accused 6 for allegedly giving false legal opinions on ten loans. The High Court, invoking Section 482 of the

B.R. KAPURversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

2001 INSC 45321 September 2001Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether J. Jayalalithaa, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, could be appointed Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu after her party won a majority. The Court held that a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of two years or m

K. POUNAMMALversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 101421 August 2025Dismissed

K. Pounammal, a 75‑year‑old widow and former Inspector of Central Excise, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe of ₹300 from a factory supervisor in 2002. The trial court sentenced her to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

MANJEET SINGH KHERAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 54721 August 2013Dismissed

The petitioner, Manjeet Singh Khera, sought a court order directing the prosecution to produce the original complaint filed with the Anti‑Corruption Bureau that had initiated the investigation leading to an FIR and charge‑sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC s.109. The prosecution contended that t

RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 52721 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard writ petitions filed as public‑interest litigation by two MPs alleging that former Bihar Chief Ministers Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi had unduly influenced the transfer of an Income‑Tax Appellate Tribunal member, the appointment of a Special CBI Judge, and the change of public prosecutors in

STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEversusK. N. NEHRU ETC.

2017 INSC 65921 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State filed a criminal appeal against the discharge of K.N. Nehru, a former minister, and his wife under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that they had amassed assets disproportionate to their known income, with the investigation also focusing on the income and assets of their son, Arun. Whil

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHIversusM.N. SHARMA

2008 INSC 84821 July 2008Case Allowed

The respondent, a Sub‑Registrar, was convicted by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120‑B IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. While his appeal was pending, he filed an application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the CrPC seeking suspension of the conviction,

C. RANGASWAMAIAH AND ORS.versusKARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 26621 July 1998Dismissed

The Karnataka State Government deputed police officers to the Lokayukta and created the post of Director General of Police, Lokayukta by administrative order without amending the recruitment rules. Petitioners, who were under investigation, challenged the validity of investigations conducted by these deputed officers u

ANOOP BARTARIA & ETCversusDY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.

2023 INSC 41321 April 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, Anoop Bartaria and World Trade Park Ltd., challenged an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and a prosecution complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), arguing that they lacked knowledge that the funds they received were proceeds of crime and that such knowledge

RAM KISHAN FAUJIversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 23821 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Kishan Fauji challenged the Haryana Lokayukta's recommendation to register an FIR and investigate alleged corruption. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, sitting as a Single Judge, quashed the recommendation and the FIR under a writ petition filed under Article 226. The State appealed the judgment via a Letters Patent

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

M.O. SHAMSUDHINversusSTATE OF KERALA.

1995 INSC 19721 March 1995Dismissed

The appellants, a Tehsildar and a Village Assistant, were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for demanding a bribe in a land‑patta case. The main issue was whether the testimony of the bribe‑giver, who was an accomplice, required corroboration before a conviction could be sustained. The Supreme Co

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusK.M. SHARAN

2008 INSC 22921 February 2008Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated K.M. Sharan, former Vice‑Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority, and his son for alleged illegal gratification from DLF and for possessing cash of Rs.36 lakh recovered from the son’s residence. The CBI filed a charge‑sheet under IPC sections 120B (criminal con

VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2015 INSC 95621 January 2015Dismissed

Vinod Kumar, an octroi inspector, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500. The prosecution relied on the recovery of the tainted notes, the testimony of an independent clerk (PW‑6), a shadow witness (PW‑7) who was later declared ho

SHYAM LAL VERMAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 4521 January 2013Dismissed

The appellant, a retired post‑office employee, was convicted for misappropriating Rs 1,35,240 under Section 477‑A IPC read with Sections 3(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court, instead of imposing a custodial sentence, released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on a bo

TARUN KUMARversusASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2023 INSC 100620 November 2023Dismissed

The appellant, a Vice President of Purchases at Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd., was arrested under the fourth supplementary complaint filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for alleged money‑laundering offences linked to a bank fraud investigated under the Prevention of Corruption

BALIRAM S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2008 INSC 132720 November 2008Dismissed

Baliram, a Minimum Wages Inspector, demanded Rs 100 from Shivaji Padwal for dropping an action for not maintaining a service register. Padwal complained, and a trap was arranged using currency notes treated with anthracene powder and two independent witnesses. The treated notes were offered, accepted by Baliram, and re

STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSH. S. BANGARAPPA

2000 INSC 53420 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge‑sheet against former Karnataka Chief Minister S. Bangarappa under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial court framed a charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e)

SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 85620 September 2023

The appellant, a Jharkhand MLA, was charged with accepting a bribe to vote for a candidate in a Rajya Sabha election, but she did not cast the alleged bribe‑influenced vote. She sought quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground of immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the pl

GURUVIAHversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2019 INSC 92720 August 2019Dismissed

The case concerned two village assistants who, on the instructions of the village administrative officer, received Rs 600 as alleged gratification for signing papers to transfer an electric connection. The money was counted by one assistant, handed to the other, and the pair were caught in a police‑run trap; the cash w

CBI GUJARATversusDILIP MULANI & ANR.

2019 INSC 92520 August 2019Disposed off

The respondent, Dilip Mulani, was charged under IPC section 120‑B and several provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court rejected his discharge application, relying on documentary evidence, telephonic transcripts and witness statements that suggested his participation in a bribery conspiracy.

SATVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI

2014 INSC 54820 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Satvir Singh, an Inspector Customs, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from complainant Ramesh Suri in 1989. The trial court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution had not proved the demand, acceptance, or recovery of illegal gratification and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of

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

S.P. VELUMANIversusARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.

2022 INSC 62320 May 2022Disposed off

The appellant, a former Cabinet Minister of Tamil Nadu, challenged the High Court's refusal to disclose a preliminary enquiry report prepared by a Superintendent of Police in a corruption case. The High Court had ordered the enquiry, received the sealed report, but closed the writ petition without furnishing a copy to

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.versusAMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAL

2017 INSC 37420 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar appealed against the Patna High Court's order granting conditional bail to Amit Kumar, the principal of Vishnu Rai College, who was alleged to be the king‑pin of the "Bihar Toppers Scam" involving tampering of answer sheets, illegal firearms, and large sums of cash and property. The High Court had re

SURINDER DOGRAversusSTATE THROUGH DIRECTOR CBI

2025 INSC 25820 February 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a Traffic Superintendent of Indian Airlines at Jammu, was convicted of cheating the airline by preparing an infant ticket under a fictitious name and then forging the flight coupon to convert it into an adult ticket, thereby obtaining a lower fare and causing loss to the airline. The trial court and the

MOTAMARRI APPANNA VEERRAJU @ MAV RAJUversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2020 INSC 21620 February 2020Disposed off

Motamari Appanna Veerraju (Mav Raju) was charged under several IPC sections and the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the Sessions Court rejected his bail, the Calcutta High Court granted him interim bail on 1 Oct 2018 and kept the regular bail application pending, issuing successive interim orders until November 201

ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 103919 December 2024Dismissed

The appellants, directors of a construction company and employees of a bank, were charged under IPC sections 409, 420 and 120B and the Prevention of Corruption Act for cheating, criminal breach of trust and diversion of funds. The bank had declared the loan a non‑performing asset, recovered part of the amount through a

PROF. N. K. GANGULYversusCBI NEW DELHI

2015 INSC 84419 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an alleged illegal transfer of a government plot by senior officials of ICMR and ICPO, who were accused of criminal conspiracy and obtaining undue pecuniary advantage under Section 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI filed a charge‑sheet and the S

NAHAR SINGH YADAV & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 79019 November 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered an application by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to transfer the trial of the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam from the Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad to a court in Delhi. The case involved alleged fraudulent withdrawals of government funds by former court officials and judges. The C

THE STATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABADversusG. PREM RAJ

2009 INSC 124919 November 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the CBI, appealed the High Court’s acquittal of G. Prem Raj, a senior civil engineer, who was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5,000 / Rs 50,000 in connection with a government contract. The prosecution proved that the accused demanded the money to facilitate the signing of

R. SUNDARARAJANversusSTATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI

2006 INSC 71919 October 2006Dismissed

The appellant, a Group D public servant at the Chennai Harbour Telephone Exchange, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1500 for securing a permanent telephone connection for a subscriber. He was caught red‑handed in a police‑arranged trap, leading to a charge sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The tria

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CBIversusVIKRAM ANANTRAI DOSHI AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 65519 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI prosecuted Vikram Doshi and others for fraud involving bank loans, forged letters of credit, and diversion of funds to fictitious companies, alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 406 and others. The bank later settled the civil dispute, paid a sum and issued a "no due certificate", after which the Bombay Hi

KESHAV DUTTversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2010 INSC 53019 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a meter reader, was convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe, based primarily on a handwriting expert’s report linking him to a paper (Ex.PR) used in the alleged offence. The Supreme Court examined whether such expert opinion could be admitted witho

JINOFER KAWASJI BHUJWALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2020 INSC 44119 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a director of Aatash Norcontrol Limited (ANL), was arrested in connection with alleged financial irregularities in a Build‑Own‑Operate‑Transfer project for a Vessel Traffic and Port Management System (VTPMS) in the Gulf of Khambhat. While the dispute over capital costs was referred to arbitration, the Gu

STATE OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, DAVANAGEREversusC B NAGARAJ

2025 INSC 73619 May 2025Dismissed

The respondent, C B Nagaraj, an Extension Officer, was alleged to have demanded a Rs 1,500 bribe from a teacher, E R Krishnamurthy, for issuing a spot‑inspection report required for a validity certificate. The Lokayuktha police recovered the alleged bribe using a phenolphthalein‑smeared trap and the trial court convict

PUNEET SABHARWALversusCBI

2024 INSC 22119 March 2024Dismissed

The CBI filed a case alleging that R.C. Sabharwal, a former public servant, owned assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that his son, Puneet Sabharwal, abetted him. The trial court framed charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 10

BENEDICT DENIS KINNYversusTULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS.

2020 INSC 32019 March 2020Dismissed

The appellants challenged High Court orders that allowed elected councillors, whose caste validity certificates were rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to retain their seats pending judicial review. Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act provides that failure to submit a caste validity certificate wi

P.L. TATWALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 11519 February 2014Case Partly allowed

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer of the Ujjain Municipal Corporation, was prosecuted under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged irregularities in a building contract. He argued that, because he was appointed by an Administrator, only the Administrator or the State Govern

M. KRISHNAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

1999 INSC 7419 February 1999Disposed off

M. Krishna, a Class‑I officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service, was investigated in 1989 for possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, resulting in a ‘B’‑form that was accepted by a Special Judge and his attached properties were released. In 1995 a fresh FIR was lodged a

K. ANBAZHAGANversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS. ETC.

2003 INSC 64218 November 2003Case Allowed

The petitioners, led by K. Anbazhagan, sought transfer of two corruption cases against J. Jayalalitha and others from the Special Court in Chennai to a court in Karnataka, alleging that the trial was being subverted by the recall of witnesses, the dispensing of personal appearance of the accused, and the public prosecu

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusAVADH KISHORE GUPTA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 64318 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that quashed a criminal investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Awadh Kishore Gupta, an executive engineer, on the ground that he had acquired assets beyond his known sources of income. The High Court had relied on annexed docum

VIVEK BATRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 97118 October 2016Dismissed

Vivek Batra, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was investigated by the CBI for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. After a six‑year investigation, the Finance Ministry sought and eventually received a sanction for his prosecution on 9 October 2012, following advice from the Central Vigilance Commis

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusAMEER JAN

2007 INSC 93918 September 2007Dismissed

The respondent, Ameerjan, a second‑division assistant in the Registrar of Firms and Co‑operative Societies, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs 300 for issuing a certificate. He was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanctioning authority, the Com

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

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA AND ANRversusB. SRINIVAS

2008 INSC 94418 August 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a corruption investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against B. Srinivas, an engineer, where the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha authorized an Inspector to investigate and an FIR was lodged on 12 June 2000. Srinivas filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC see

STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICEversusH. SRINIVAS

2018 INSC 54918 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State by Lokayuktha Police appealed against the Karnataka High Court's order quashing FIRs filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act against H. Srinivas and others on the ground that the police had conducted a preliminary enquiry without recording it in the General Diary. The Supreme Court examined whether a pre

M.P. STATEversusPRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA

2011 INSC 40418 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Pradeep Kumar Gupta, an engineer appointed under Section 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, 1961 by the State Government, was penalised with withdrawal of two increments. The State Government granted sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court quashed the

TR. A. BABUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2025 INSC 79918 March 2025

The appellant, a 68‑year‑old former managing trustee of two charitable trusts, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of grant‑in‑aid funds meant for schools for specially‑abled children. The High Court rejected his appeal agains

STATE OF UTTARAKHANDversusYOGENDRA NATH ARORA

2013 INSC 17118 March 2013Dismissed

Yogendra Nath Arora, a Deputy General Manager of a Uttar Pradesh state undertaking, was on deputation to a Uttarakhand government undertaking when he was arrested for accepting a bribe. The Uttarakhand State Government repatriated him to his parent organization and granted sanction for prosecution under the Prevention

STATE OF PUNJABversusLABH SINGH

2014 INSC 87617 December 2014Case Partly allowed

The State of Punjab sought to prosecute two retired public servants, Sikandar Singh and Labh Singh, for alleged corruption and related offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The department had refused sanction to prosecute them both before and after their retirements, yet a cha

GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2013 INSC 84217 December 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Gulabrao Baburao Deokar, was charged along with 56 others for a massive defalcation of public funds amounting to Rs.169.60 crore involving the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. He was granted bail by the Sessions Court under Section 439(1) CrPC, but the High Court cancelled the bail on grounds of procedural

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

2013 INSC 83917 December 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which requires prior Central Government approval for CBI investigations into senior officials, applies when the investigation is being monitored by the Court itself. The Court noted that the CBI had initiated investigatio

DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGHversusSTATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

2015 INSC 84117 November 2015Disposed off

Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, a senior Indian Forest Service officer, was subjected to a vigilance enquiry, house raid and arrest without the prior approval of the Chief Secretary, as required by the State's procedural rules. The petitioner contended that the State violated his fundamental rights, unlawfully suspended him, and

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