Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

519 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

STATE OF A.P.versusS. JANARDHANA RAO

2004 INSC 65417 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted S. Janardhana Rao, a Metropolitan Sessions Judge, for demanding Rs 6 lakh (later reduced to Rs 3 lakh) as illegal gratification to secure the acquittal of accused in a pending Sessions case. A trap, authorized by the Chief Justice, led to the money being handed to the judge's wife

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

STATE BY C.B.I. NEW DELHIversusR. SURI BABU AND ANR.

2000 INSC 48617 October 2000Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a criminal appeal against a Karnataka High Court order that discharged two of six accused, including former Chief Minister Bangarappa and his private secretary Suri Babu, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC section 120‑B. The trial court had ear

AJOY ACHARYAversusSTATE BUREAU OF INV. AGAINST ECO. OFFENCE

2013 INSC 63217 September 2013Dismissed

The case concerned Ajoy Acharya, an IAS officer who was also a nominee Director of the Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (MPSIDC). He was charged for allowing the Board of MPSIDC to pass a resolution on 19‑April‑1995 that authorised short‑term loans, allegedly contrary to earlier government decisi

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusDR. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL & ANR.

2012 INSC 34117 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against a Rajasthan High Court order that quashed an FIR registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal, a junior specialist surgeon, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs.1,500 in a police‑led trap. The High Court had r

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusMAN MOHAN NATH SINHA & ANR.

2009 INSC 104917 August 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Man Mohan Nath Sinha, a private secretary to a Uttar Pradesh state minister, was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of misappropriating public funds. He challenged the dismissal before the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the order by re‑appreciating the evidence presented to the

HEMANT DHASMANAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

2001 INSC 37417 August 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Hemant Dhasmana filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the sons of a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax demanded a bribe. The CBI conducted a trap, recovered cash, but its final report exonerated the respondents and accused Dhasmana of false information. The Special Judge rejected the CBI

M SAMBASIVA RAOversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 86817 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Assistant Administrative Officer in an insurance company, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.40,000 to expedite a claim settlement and of conspiring with a regional manager and his brother in a demand‑and‑trap operation. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court reversed the acquit

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusNAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI ETC.

2018 INSC 61317 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat prosecuted two junior clerks for demanding and accepting a bribe in a trap operation to expedite a non‑agricultural land conversion. The complainant testified that J.D. Patel demanded Rs 1,000 (settled at Rs 500) and directed the complainant to hand the money to Navinbhai Joshi, whose shirt pocket

REF:versusSMT. SAYALEE SANJEEV JOSHI, MEMBER, MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2007 INSC 61217 May 2007Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined a reference under Article 317 of the Constitution concerning Ms. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, a member of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, who was arrested in connection with alleged malpractices in the 1999 examination. The Court considered four charges: protecting certain candidates, in

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSANTOSH KARNANI & ANR

2023 INSC 38017 April 2023Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated a trap operation in which Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Santosh Karnani allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 30 lakhs to influence a tax assessment of Safal Construction. The complainant recorded the demand and the subsequent acknowledgment of paym

SOUNDARAJANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL

2023 INSC 37717 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Sub‑Registrar, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding a Rs.500 gratification to release a registered sale deed. The prosecution relied on a trap operation and the testimony of a shadow witness, but the complainant, who was the key witness to the alleged demand, was declared

P.V. NARASIMHA RAO ETC. ETC.versusSTATE (CBL/SPE) ETC. ETC.

1998 INSC 18517 April 1998Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Members of Parliament (MPs) could claim immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution for offences of offering or accepting bribes to influence their speech or vote in Parliament, and whether they fall within the definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Ac

NEERAJ DUTTAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

2023 INSC 24517 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Electricity Inspector, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 10,000 to facilitate the installation of an electricity meter. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimony of a shadow‑witness (PW‑5) and on the recovery of cash from the a

KRISHNA RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2009 INSC 35617 March 2009Dismissed

Krishna Ram, a Patwari, was accused of demanding and accepting Rs.500 as a bribe for issuing a favourable land lease report. The complainant, Gurmukh Singh, arranged a trap in which the money was marked with phenolphthalein and handed to the accused, who was later caught with the cash and a pink‑stained shirt. The tria

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusT.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY

2025 INSC 22917 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order quashing FIR No. 56 of 2023, which had been registered against public servant T.N. Sudhakar Reddy for alleged disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had held that a preliminary inquiry was mandatory be

K.ANBAZHAGANversusSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 11817 February 2004Dismissed

The petitioners sought to modify a Supreme Court order that had transferred criminal proceedings against them from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They argued that the prevailing tension between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the Cauvery water dispute, the threat posed

MAUVIN GODINHOversusSTATE OF GOA

2018 INSC 2817 January 2018Disposed off

The case arose from a series of power‑tariff rebate notifications issued by the Government of Goa, some of which were allegedly promulgated without Cabinet approval. The appellant‑Minister of Power, the Chief Electrical Engineer and senior officials of two private companies were accused of conspiring to grant a 25% reb

VASANTI DUBEYversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2012 INSC 3617 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Block Development Officer, was accused by a contractor of demanding a bribe in connection with a road contract. The Lokayukta investigated, found the complaint to be false, and submitted a closure report to the Special Judge. The Special Judge rejected the closure report twice, directing the police to

OM PARKASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2006 INSC 2717 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Om Parkash and co‑accused were convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly offering a bribe of Rs 10,000 to Inspector Ganeshi Lal to influence a murder investigation. The prosecution’s case was marred by a four‑hour delay in lodging the FIR, contradictory statements

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

SANJAI TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2020 INSC 70416 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sanjai Tiwari, was charged under several IPC offences and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A third‑party advocate, calling himself a social activist, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a High Court order directing the Special Judge to expedite the trial.

PUNEET DALMIAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD

2019 INSC 137916 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, accused No.3 in a CBI case involving offences under Sections 120‑B, 420, 409 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, was required to appear before the trial court in Hyderabad every Friday despite residing in Delhi. He applied under Section 205 of the CrPC to be exempted from personal appearance, citin

KESHAB NARAYAN BANERJEE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

1999 INSC 56516 December 1999Dismissed

The appellants were tried before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna, for alleged fraud in obtaining a Rs. 2 crore compensation under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. They contended that the offences were committed in respect of a document produced before the Compensation Officer and that, under Section 195(1)(b) of

GOVERNMENT OF NCT (DELHI) AND ANOTHERversusK. SRIVATSAN

2014 INSC 100716 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

K. Srivatsan, a government employee on deputation to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was suspended on 3 December 2007, the suspension was revoked, and he was again suspended on 29 February 2008, remaining under suspension until his superannuation on 30 June 2008. After retirement, the CBI investigated alleged finan

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusTAPAS D. NEOGY

1999 INSC 41716 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Tapas D. Neogy, a town planner, was accused of corruptly altering zoning maps to benefit landowners, leading to charges under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During investigation, the police sealed lockers and instructed banks not to allow operation of Neogy's bank account, citing Section 102 of the

RAKESH KUMAR PAULversusSTATE OF ASSAM

2017 INSC 75416 August 2017Disposed off

Rakesh Kumar Paul was arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and remained in custody for more than 60 days without a charge‑sheet. The State argued that because the offence could attract imprisonment of up to ten years, the 90‑day period under clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC applied, den

P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2025 INSC 72516 May 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, former public servants, were charged in a large‑scale corruption case involving alleged manipulation of liquor allocations and kickbacks. They applied for anticipatory bail, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court denied relief, relying on confessional statements recorded from co‑accused under Section 161 of

Y. BALAJIversusKARTHIK DESARI & ANR. ETC.

2023 INSC 54216 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a large jobs‑for‑cash scam in Tamil Nadu where public servants allegedly accepted bribes for appointments, triggering investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the bribe money itself constitutes "pr

STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.versusC.P. RAO

2011 INSC 40216 May 2011Dismissed

The respondent, C.P. Rao, was charged with demanding a bribe of Rs 5,000 from complainant CW‑1 in exchange for granting pass marks to D‑Pharma students in a practical examination. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the Keral

S. MOHANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2008 INSC 69316 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the purchase of CANCIGO units worth Rs 33 crore by broker Hiten P. Dalal on behalf of Canbank Financial Services Ltd. (CANFINA) and the alleged involvement of senior CANFINA officials S. Mohan and others. The prosecution alleged that the units, issued in the names of Andhra Bank and its financial ser

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusMOHAN LAL

2009 INSC 54316 April 2009Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan appealed the acquittal of Mohan Lal, who was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (ss 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)) for demanding a bribe that was allegedly hidden in his almirah. The trial court found the prosecution’s case uncredible and acquitted him; the High Court affirmed the acqui

P. RAMA CHANDRA RAOversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2002 INSC 20316 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, were acquitted by special courts after two years of delay, relying on time‑limit directions from the Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma cases. The Karnataka High Court set aside the acquittals and entertained appeals without giving notice to th

LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N. SHUKLAversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 784 OF 2015 FEBRUARY 16, 2018

2018 INSC 16416 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Lok Prahari, a registered society, filed a writ petition alleging that several members of Parliament and State Legislatures had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, seeking greater transparency and possible disqualification. The Court examined whether undue accretion of assets could be made

NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

2024 INSC 4116 January 2024Matter referred to larger bench

The former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, N. Chandrababu Naidu, was added as accused No.37 in FIR No.29/2021 alleging massive misappropriation of funds related to skill development projects, invoking offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the IPC. He sought quashing of the FIR and the remand order

SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVANversusDATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 4816 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved an alleged bribe demand recorded during a police‑run trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigating officer submitted a closure report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, which the magistrate accepted, finding no case against the appellant, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan. The High Court,

NEERAJ DUTTAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

2022 INSC 128015 December 2022Reference answered

The case concerned an appeal by Neeraj Dutta against the State under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the prosecution alleged that the public servant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The central issue was whether, in the absence of the complainant’s direct or primary evidence of demand, the

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusBRIJLAL SADASUKH MODANI

2015 INSC 104315 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Brijlal Sadashuk Modani, was a senior employee of Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., a multi‑state cooperative bank. While in service he received notices from the Anti‑Corruption Bureau demanding details of his assets, which he contested on the ground that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA)

KOOTHA PERUMALversusSTATE TR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION

2010 INSC 88315 December 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a municipal officer, was accused of demanding a Rs.50 bribe for issuing a tax certificate and was caught in a police‑laid trap using phenolphthalein‑treated currency notes. He was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the conviction was affirmed by the High Cour

SHIV KUMARversusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

2008 INSC 143515 December 2008Disposed off

Shiv Kumar was convicted under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He applied to the Delhi High Court for suspension of his sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that he had already served one year and eight months an

U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS.versusAJIT SINGH PATEL & ORS.

2018 INSC 106115 November 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

U.P. Jal Nigam (appellant) had declared the appointments of 122 candidates void on 11 August 2017, but the Allahabad High Court set aside that order, holding it violated natural justice and that the authority had not distinguished between tainted and untainted candidates. The High Court granted the appellant liberty to

M/S COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.versusCOAL CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.

2010 INSC 61515 September 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) could suspend coal supplies to 45 industrial consumers under a Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) when no FIR had been filed against those consumers. The Court noted that Clause 4.4 of the FSA and the 2007 New Coal Distribution Policy permit suspension only

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.versusALOK FUELS (P) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

2010 INSC 61215 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, Alok Fuels Ltd. and others, were supplied coal by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) under a Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) that required the coal to be used only in their plants. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodged an FIR alleging that the respondents were diverting the allotted coal to the open

G. MOHANDASversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS

2025 INSC 85415 July 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a building owner, conspired with officials of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and an architect to obtain a spurious renovation permit and then demolish an existing structure to erect a four‑storeyed commercial building in a zone where such construction is prohibited. A vigilance enquiry esta

SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENTversusKAMTA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 64415 June 2026Dismissed

The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, constituted under the 1947 Act to investigate corruption‑related offences, was directed by the High Court to disclose information sought by a Town Inspector under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The appellant argued that a 2011 State Government notific

A. SRINIVASULUversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2023 INSC 97115 June 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved senior officials of BHEL and private individuals accused of conspiring to award a contract for a desalination plant through a restricted tender, allegedly causing a loss of Rs.4.32 crore to the PSU. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of an approver who had been granted pardon under Sectio

C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERSversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 41615 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, a government teacher, alleged that the accused induced him to invest in benami land deals and later failed to deliver the promised plots and profits, leading him to file both a civil suit and a criminal FIR. The accused sought quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, arguing that the dispute was purely ci

K.L. BAKOLIAversusSTATE THROUGH DIRECTOR, C.B.L~"V

2015 INSC 43115 May 2015Case Partly allowed

In 1996, the appellant K.L. Bakolia demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000 from Shamsher Singh, the proprietor of a security services firm, for renewal of a contract with the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. The complainant paid the amount under a CBI‑conducted trap, after which the money was recovered and Bakolia was ch

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusA. RAVISHANKAR PRASAD & ORS

2009 INSC 81715 May 2009Disposed off

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appealed against the Madras High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings against A. Ravishankar Prasad and others for alleged conspiracy, forgery and fraud involving Indian Bank. The respondents had settled civil dues of Rs.157 crore, and argued that the settlement extingui

STATE OF PUNJABversusSOHAN SINGH

2006 INSC 34415 May 2006Dismissed

The State of Punjab prosecuted Junior Engineer Sohan Singh under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 200 to release an electric connection. The trial court convicted him, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted him, finding no proo

VASANT TUKARAM PAWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2005 INSC 20915 April 2005Disposed off

Vasant Tukaram Pawar was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000. He appealed to the Bombay High Court seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail under Sect

ABHAY JAINversusTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR

2022 INSC 30915 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a judicial officer appointed in 2013, granted bail on 27 April 2015 in a corruption case, which led to a departmental enquiry alleging misconduct and extraneous motives. While the enquiry was pending, a Higher Judicial Committee recommended his discharge and a Full Court ordered his termination on ground

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusANIL KUMAR SARKAR

2013 INSC 16615 March 2013Dismissed

The respondent, a senior accounts officer in the North‑East Frontier Railway, was placed on the extended select panel for promotion to Group A (Junior Scale) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in February 2002. When his batch‑mates were promoted on 21‑April‑2003, he was not promoted. He claimed that the DPC’

NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 16915 March 2013Disposed off

The petitioners, a public servant and his wife, sought quashing of a criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged disproportionate assets, alleging inordinate delay that violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether Article 32 could be invoked to

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

BISWAJIT DASversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2025 INSC 8515 January 2025Case Partly allowed

Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, was convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act for fraudulently obtaining insurance settlements by falsely claiming the insured were dead. He was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonm

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusNARENDRA DAMODARDAS MODI & ORS.

2018 INSC 121614 December 2018Dismissed

The Supreme Court heard a group of writ petitions filed as public‑interest litigations challenging the Government of India's procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets, seeking registration of an FIR, a court‑monitored investigation and quashing of the Inter‑Governmental Agreement on alleged corruption, pricing irregulariti

HARSH KUMAR SHARMA, IFSversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2016 INSC 113014 December 2016Disposed off

Harsh Kumar Sharma, an IFS officer, faced criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged irregularities in a golf‑course project in a forest area. While his promotion to Chief Conservator of Forests was considered by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC), the DPC kept his assessment in a

KAMINI JAISWALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 111214 November 2017Dismissed

The petitioners, including a member of the Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, filed successive writ petitions alleging that an FIR implicated senior judicial functionaries and that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should not hear or assign the matter. They sought a Special Investigation Team and the re

N. SUNKANNAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2015 INSC 76914 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.300 from a fair‑price shop owner and was caught in a trap where tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. The complainant later turned hostile, and no other witness testified to the demand. The trial and High Courts convicted

KANCHAN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

2022 INSC 95514 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kanchan Kumar, a former Assistant General Manager of the Bihar State Financial Corporation, was charged under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known income during the period 1974‑1988. The charge‑sheet claimed an income of Rs.

STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEversusB.T. RAMESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 84014 July 2025Case Partly allowed

The State of Karnataka challenged the Karnataka High Court’s order that quashed criminal proceedings against former BBMP Chief Engineer B.T. Ramesh on the grounds that the chargesheet was filed more than four years after the alleged misconduct and that no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was obtained. Ramesh had

MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2017 INSC 62114 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, heir of the deceased Mukhtiar Singh, appealed against the conviction of the latter, a former Station House Officer, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and receiving bribes of Rs.3,000 and Rs.2,000 during a police‑trap operation. The prosecution re

STATE OF PUNJABversusNAVRAJ SINGH

2008 INSC 82214 July 2008Case Allowed

Navraj Singh, a Patwari, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (ss.7, 13(1)(d) r.w. s.13(2)) and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed the conviction and, after the appeal was admitted, applied under CrPC s.389(1) read with s.482 for suspension of the conviction. The Punjab a

BHARAT PARIKHversusC.B.I. & ANR.

2008 INSC 82414 July 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Bharat Parikh, was charged in a special CBI case in 1996. After five years he sought production of certain documents, which were eventually produced in 2002, and then applied for reopening of the case and discharge. The Special Judge rejected the application, and the Bombay High Court dismissed his Secti

CAPT. AMARINDER SINGHversusPRAKASH SINGH BADAL & ORS.

2009 INSC 80914 May 2009Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered two transfer petitions filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to move a corruption trial of former Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal, his relatives and associates out of Punjab. The petitioners alleged that the accused’s political power, hostile witnesses

J. JAYALALITHA ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1999 INSC 25614 May 1999Disposed off

The former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha and several ministers challenged a Tamil Nadu Government notification that created three additional Sessions Courts in Chennai and appointed their judges as special judges to try corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). They argued that Sec

SRI NARENDRA KUMAR A. BALDOTAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2022 INSC 30114 March 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Chairman and Managing Director of M/s MSPL Ltd, imported an Aston Martin, paid customs duty and road tax, and later paid a differential motor vehicle tax after a demand notice. A FIR alleged that he conspired with a Regional Transport Officer to evade road tax, leading to criminal proceedings under the P

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.versusN. GANGARAJ

2020 INSC 18814 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a police inspector, was accused of demanding illegal gratification and was acquitted in a criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Separate departmental proceedings found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from service. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal set aside the dismissal,

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 19414 February 2019Disposed off

The case involves multiple appeals arising from a Delhi High Court judgment concerning the division of powers between the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) under Article 239AA of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench had earlier interpreted Artic

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS.

2017 INSC 14314 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court allowed appeals against the acquittal of A2 to A4 (Sasikala, Sudhakaran, Elavarasi) in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court had convicted them for conspiracy and abetment with A1 (Jayalalitha, since deceased) in amassing assets worth Rs.66.65 cro

RAM NARAIN POPLIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2003 INSC 1014 January 2003Disposed off

The case involved five financial transactions between Maruti Udyog Ltd (MUL), a government company, and Harshad S. Mehta (A5), a broker, routed through banks. The CBI alleged that the accused conspired to divert MUL's surplus funds to A5 through fraudulent transactions. The Special Court convicted A1, A3, A4, and A5, a

PARTHA CHATTERJEEversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 62713 December 2024Disposed off

The former West Bengal Education Minister, Partha Chatterjee, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a large‑scale teachers recruitment scam and alleged money‑laundering offences under the PMLA. After raids recovered substantial cash and gold from his associates and companies, he was denied bail

N. RAGHAVENDERversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI

2021 INSC 87613 December 2021Disposed off

The appellant, a former branch manager of Sri Rama Grameena Bank, was convicted under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly allowing withdrawals from an account of the Nishita Educational Academy and prematurely encashing two fixed d

AKHILESH YADAV ETC. ETC.versusVISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS.

2012 INSC 60713 December 2012Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a 2007 order that directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inquire into alleged disproportionate assets of a political family and to submit its report to the Union of India. The petitioners sought a review, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order a CBI inquiry without

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusKAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY

2004 INSC 60213 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal prosecuted Kailash Chandra Pandey, a Deputy General Manager at Calcutta Airport, for demanding a bribe of Rs.5,000 to facilitate the passage of cleaning contract bills. A trap was arranged in which the complainant handed the money, which was subsequently recovered from Pandey's pocket; his hand

ARVIND KEJRIWALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 68713 September 2024Disposed off

The appellant, a three‑time Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the CBI in June 2024 in connection with an FIR registered in August 2022 under sections 120B, 477A IPC and section 7 PC Act. He challenged the legality of the arrest under Sections 41A and 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC and also sought regular bail. The Hig

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusJAI LAL AND ORS.

1999 INSC 39313 September 1999Dismissed

The State of Himachal Pradesh alleged that accused growers and officials conspired to inflate the quantity of scab‑affected apples procured for destruction, thereby cheating the government. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on the testimony of the District Horticulture Officer, who was presented as an expert on th

MINIversusCBI/SPE COCHIN

2025 INSC 98013 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the widow of a deceased clerk who worked in the Passport Office, challenged the conviction of her husband under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded an extra Rs.200 over the lawful passport fee of Rs.1,000 and that the

LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2013 INSC 53313 August 2013Dismissed not complying condition order

The appellant, Lalu Prasad Yadav, sought transfer of the fodder‑scam criminal trial from the Special Judge (CBI) to another court, alleging that the judge was biased because of a familial link to a political rival. The Supreme Court examined the long‑running case, noting that the trial had been ongoing since 1997 and w

GIRLSH KUMAR SUNEJAversusC.B.L.

2017 INSC 61513 July 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld its earlier order that any prayer for stay or to impede the progress of investigations or trials in the coal block allocation cases must be made only before the Supreme Court, thereby limiting the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The Court held that this restriction is perm

STATE, CBI, HYDERABADversusEDWIN DEVASAHAYAM

2007 INSC 75313 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, an Assistant Commercial Manager in the Indian Railways, demanded and accepted a Rs 300 bribe from his subordinate, PW‑1, leading to a CBI investigation and charge‑sheet. The Special Judge convicted him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the co

A. JAYARAM AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH BY CBI

1995 INSC 39713 July 1995Disposed off

The case concerned a large‑scale fraud in which imported fertilisers were allegedly lifted from ports but not delivered to government godowns, with dealers and government officials accused of colluding to obtain false transport‑charge certificates. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the Andhra Pradesh High Cour

STATE THROUGH CBI, CHENNAIversusV. ARUL KUMAR

2016 INSC 118513 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The State, represented by the CBI, appealed against a High Court order that struck down a tender of pardon granted by a Metropolitan Magistrate to five approvers in a corruption case triable by a Special Judge. The prosecution had filed a charge‑sheet before the Magistrate and obtained a pardon under Section 306 of the

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

ANOSH EKKAversusSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2026 INSC 35713 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The former Jharkhand minister Anosh Ekka was convicted in two separate cases arising from the same set of allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and misusing his office. The High Court rejected his application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of the appeal, prompting a special leave pet

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP

2021 INSC 25213 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The accused, a Patwari, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.2,800 for issuing a domicile/OBC certificate, as recorded in a telephone transcript. The Special Judge, after hearing the prosecution, found a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and framed a charge. The High Court

HEM CHANDversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2008 INSC 36213 March 2008Dismissed

Hem Chand, Executive Director (Vigilance) of a government company, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets beyond his known income. He filed an application for discharge, relying on an Income Tax assessment order and his asset declaration, and submitted these documents to the Spec

NAYANKUMAR SHIVAPPA WAGHMAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015 INSC 96413 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a public servant in the Finance Section of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, was alleged to have demanded and accepted bribes from the complainant for expediting his sister's pension and GPF dues. The complainant, after paying part of the demanded money, was caught in a trap where the accused was found with the

SURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2013 INSC 9713 February 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, a former minister and MLA, were arrested for alleged misappropriation of funds and charged under several IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions. Although the charge‑sheet and a supplementary charge‑sheet were filed within the 90‑day period prescribed by Section 167(2) of the CrPC, the prosecut

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

V. VENKATA SUBBARAOversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P.

2006 INSC 99212 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

V. Venkat Subbarao, a surveyor, was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs.2,000 after intervening in a demand of Rs.5,000 made by a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for allowing the removal of casurina trees. The prosecution relied on a pre‑trap operation conducted by the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, but the Supreme Court found nu

M.NARSINGA RAOversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2000 INSC 58512 December 2000Dismissed

M. Narsinga Rao, a manager of a milk chilling centre, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting a Rs.500 bribe from a contractor. He was caught in a trap set up by the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, but the key witnesses turned hostile after a four‑year delay, claiming the trap was fabricated. The

S. RAGHU RAMAIAHversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2008 INSC 129512 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Raghu Ramaiah, a Junior Assistant in the Commissioner’s Endowments Office, was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for receiving illegal gratification. He appealed the conviction before the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 1999

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

SHRI GIRISH VYAS & ANR. .versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2011 INSC 75612 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned a 3,450‑sq‑metre plot (FP No.110) in Pune that was originally reserved for a garden and later for a primary school under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). After the land was acquired, the developer, who was the son‑in‑law of the then Chief Minister, obtained a developme

NARINDERJIT SINGH SAHNI AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 50312 October 2001Dismissed

The petitioners, directors of several finance companies accused of large‑scale cheating, filed writ petitions under Article 32 claiming that their personal liberty under Article 21 was violated because they were detained in various jails despite obtaining bail in some cases. The Court held that while a petition under A

KANNANversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2018 INSC 80912 September 2018Dismissed

The case involved a grocery shop owner (PW‑2) who sought the return of a seized accounts book and was asked for a bribe by Assistant Commercial Tax Officer A‑1. After filing a complaint, a trap was arranged and PW‑2 paid Rs.800 to A‑2 on A‑1’s direction; the transaction was detected using a sodium carbonate test, leadi

A. KARUNANITHIversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2025 INSC 96712 August 2025Disposed off

The case concerned two village officials, A‑1 (Village Administrative Officer) and A‑2 (Village Assistant), who were convicted under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and receiving a bribe of Rs.500. A trap was laid using phenolphthalein‑treated notes, leading to the

MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2024 INSC 60012 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Patwari, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.500 and was caught in a trap operation organized by the Lokayukta. He was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting public servants during the trap, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the Supreme Cou

STATE OF PUNJABversusMADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA

2013 INSC 53012 August 2013Dismissed

The respondent, an Income Tax Inspector, was alleged to have demanded Rs.25,000 as illegal gratification to refrain from reopening a tax assessment. A trap was laid using chemically treated currency notes that turned pink on the respondent's hands, leading to his conviction by the trial court under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)

STATE OF ORRISAversusNALINIKANTA MUDULI

2004 INSC 44312 August 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Orissa appealed against a single judge of the Orissa High Court who had quashed three petitions filed by the accused, Nalinikanta Muduli, under Section 482 of the CrPC, relying on the Patna High Court decision J.A.C. Saldanha (1979). The State contended that the cited decision had been overruled by the Sup

JARNAIL SINGH & ANRversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2022 INSC 70812 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a complaint that the General Manager of Punjab Roadways, in collusion with conductors, was selling and using illegally printed tickets, causing massive loss to the depot. An enquiry was conducted, tickets were seized, and an FIR was filed; fifteen persons were charged, of whom three conductors (Jarn

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusADITYA TRIPATHI

2023 INSC 53112 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated alleged tampering of e‑tender bids that led to charges under the IPC, IT Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Because those offences are scheduled under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the ED opened a money‑laundering investigation and the accused,

GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR.versusB. JAGJEEVAN RAO

2014 INSC 97312 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a government servant, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., suspended the execution of the sentence but did not stay the conviction. The Department dismissed the

V. SEJAPPAversusTHE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR LOKAYUKTA, CHITRADURGA

2016 INSC 30512 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

V. Sejappa, a public servant, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding and receiving Rs 5,000 as bribe to issue a No‑Objection Certificate for a pension claim. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a demand and that the sanction order was def

BHIMA RAZU PRASADversusSTATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II

2021 INSC 18012 March 2021Dismissed

The case involved Bhima Razu Prasad, who was charged with offences under the IPC, PC Act and alleged to have concealed disproportionate assets. During investigation, accused No.2 and No.3 claimed the seized money was held in escrow, producing a fabricated sale deed to shield Prasad. The trial and High Courts convicted

VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 2412 January 2015Dismissed

Vinayak Narayan Deosthali, an Assistant Manager in the securities department of UCO Bank, was convicted by a Special Court for conspiring with broker Harshad Mehta and a fellow bank officer to manipulate Subsidiary General Ledger (SGL) accounts, causing loss to the bank and illegal gain to Mehta. The appellant argued t

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

STATE OF ODISHAversusPRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.

2021 INSC 87211 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Odisha filed a criminal appeal against the High Court’s order that quashed FIR proceedings under Sections 420 r/w 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against public servants of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) and the Housing & Urban Development Departmen

N.C. DHOUNDIALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 70311 December 2003Case Partly allowed

In 1994 the CBI searched and later arrested a telecom officer, later filing a corruption charge‑sheet. The officer complained to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) alleging illegal detention and harassment. After an initial dismissal, the NHRC, treating the complaint as a review petition, found a prima facie c

SHIVSAGAR TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 118311 October 1996Disposed off

The petition challenged the 1994 allotment of 52 shops/stalls by the then Minister of Urban Development, Smt. Shiela Kaul, alleging that the allotments were made arbitrarily to her relatives, friends and staff in violation of the prescribed tender policy. The CBI report confirmed that the minister bypassed the policy a

CBIversusR.R. KISHORE

2023 INSC 81711 September 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The CBI registered a case against Dr. R.R. Kishore for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but conducted the investigation without the prior approval of the Central Government required by Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Delhi High Court allowed the trial

BABUversusSTATE OF KERALA

2010 INSC 49511 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Babu was charged under IPC s.302 for allegedly murdering his wife by giving her sodium cyanide disguised as an ayurvedic contraceptive. The trial court acquitted him due to lack of direct evidence and doubts about the prosecution's version, but the Kerala High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted hi

SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA &ORS.

2012 INSC 23011 May 2012Hearing Adjourned

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Samaj Parivartan Samuday alleging continued illegal mining of iron ore in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, despite earlier orders and a CBI charge‑sheet. The Court considered reports of a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) that identified irregularities, including land de

BALBIR SINGH BEDIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2013 INSC 8811 February 2013Dismissed

Balbir Singh Bedi, a retired District Commander of the Punjab Home Guard, claimed he was eligible for substantive promotion to Battalion Commander under Rule 8 of the Punjab Home Guard (Class‑I) Rules, 1988, which mandates selection on a "seniority‑cum‑merit" basis. While his case was considered alongside other candida

M. GOPALAKRISHNANversusSTATE BY ADDL. S.P. CBI, B.S. & F.C., BANGALORE

2009 INSC 14111 February 2009Dismissed

The CBI filed a case under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against M. Gopalakrishnan, then Executive Director, Chairman and Managing Director of Indian Bank. Gopalakrishnan sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Disposed off

The petitioners, senior public servants accused of possessing assets disproportionate to their known income under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenged the constitutionality of the Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, which created special courts for s

RAMENDRA@ RAMAN DHULDHUEversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a junior assistant in the Indore Regional Transport Office, was investigated for possessing property allegedly acquired through corrupt means under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 came into force, the Special Judge dec

BALBHADRA PARASHARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2015 INSC 104110 December 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a manager of a primary agriculture credit cooperative society, was charged under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing assets beyond his known income, and a sanction to prosecute was granted. The appellant challenged the sanction before the High Court under Section 482 o

PRAVIN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2020 INSC 54210 September 2020Dismissed

Pravin Kumar, a CISF Sub‑Inspector, was accused of fabricating a General Diary entry, intimidating a subordinate to give false testimony, and collecting bribes from BPCL contractors. An enquiry under CISF Rules found him guilty and recommended dismissal; the disciplinary authority dismissed him, and the appellate autho

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTORversusT. VENKATESH MURTHY

2004 INSC 51010 September 2004Case Partly allowed

The State prosecuted T. Venkatesh Murthy, a public servant, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Although a sanction was granted by the Superintending Engineer of the Karnataka Electricity Board, the trial court held that the sanction was insufficient under the Board's 1987 Re

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusRAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA, IAS AND ANR.

2006 INSC 50510 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 against an IAS officer. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR, alleging that the State of Rajasthan had withdrawn its consent for

MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMIversusTHE STATE OF A.P.

2024 INSC 50310 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Forest Section Officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from a saw‑mill operator. The prosecution relied on the complainant’s testimony, a friend who acted as a shadow witness, and the recovery

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 50210 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Union of India’s registration of cases by the CBI after the State withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is unconstitutional, and asked for an injunctio

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAVI SHANKAR SINGH & ORS.

2026 INSC 65010 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that trial courts, while trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, must examine the sanctioning authority under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before charge‑framing, even when the accused does not c

ARVIND KEJRIWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 40010 May 2024

Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested on 21 March 2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and related statutes. He challenged the arrest before the Supreme Court, arguing that the legality of his detention was sub judic

A. SLVAPRAKASHversusSTATE OF KERALA

2016 INSC 39710 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, issued a letter dated 9 June 1992 that the prosecution termed a "stage certificate" for a Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) construction project. Payments amounting to 50% of the contract value were subsequently released to the contractor, A‑3. The trial co

MRUDUL M. DAMLE & ANR.versusC.B.I. NEW DELHI

2012 INSC 22610 May 2012Case Allowed

The petitioners, a husband and wife accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought transfer of their criminal trial from the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Court, New Delhi to the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra, arguing that most of the 92 witnesses (88) were located in Maha

SOMA CHAKRAVARTYversusSTATE THROUGH CBI

2007 INSC 55110 May 2007Dismissed

The appellant, Soma Chakravarty, a Deputy Manager in the publicity division of ITPO, was charged by a Special Judge under IPC sections 420 r/w 120-B, 429, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly signing bogus advertisement bills that led to a loss of Rs.30,30,057 to the government. She contended tha

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRversusSHAM LAL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 67810 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State discovered a large embezzlement by employees of the Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and filed an FIR under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Ranbir Penal Code. The accused filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and obtain

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRversusSUDERSHAN CHAKKAR AND ANR.

1995 INSC 36510 May 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jammu & Kashmir prosecuted Sudershan Chakkar and others, alleging criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of foodgrains and empty bags worth Rs. 3,22,119.36, involving forged documents. The trial judge discharged two respondents, holding that the evidence showed only negligence, not a conspiratorial desig

NARESH KUMAR MADANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2007 INSC 39510 April 2007Dismissed

Naresh Kumar Madan, a civil engineer employed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, was caught accepting a bribe of Rs.1,000 for granting an electrical connection and was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He contended that he was not a "public servant" within the meaning of the Act because the de

PAUL VARGHESEversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2007 INSC 40510 April 2007Disposed off

The case concerned the prosecution of three accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanctioning authority approved prosecution of only one accused, but the trial court later impleaded the other two under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that this provision overrides Section

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I. AND ORS.versusTAPAN KR. SINGH

2003 INSC 22610 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI received a reliable tip that Tapan Kumar Singh, a senior official, had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs 1 lakh as illegal gratification and was carrying the cash on a train. A General Diary (G.D.) entry recorded this information, after which the police intercepted Singh, searched him, his belongings and his re

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusBALJEET SINGH

2026 INSC 22110 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI laid a trap after a complaint that Income Tax Inspector Baljeet Singh (A2) demanded a bribe of Rs 5 lakhs on behalf of Assessing Officer Arun Kumar Gurjar (A1). During the trap, marked notes smeared with phenolphthalein were recovered from A2's coat pocket and his hands turned pink in a sodium carbonate test, c

D. VELAYUTHAMversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI

2015 INSC 19110 March 2015Dismissed

The case involved two excise officers, a superintendent (Accused 1) and his subordinate (Accused 2), who demanded bribes from a manufacturer after issuing an illegal show‑cause notice. The complainant reported the demand, and a police‑led trap was set up; the bribe money was handed to Accused 2, who was caught and the

V.S. ACHUTHANANDANversusR. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

2011 INSC 11610 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the award of a hydro‑electric project contract by the Kerala State Electricity Board to K.P. Poulose at rates far above the probable amount, allegedly facilitated by Minister R. Balakrishna Pillai, a Board member and a close associate. The prosecution proved that the Minister, the Board member and an

THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBIversusUTTAMCHAND BOHRA

2021 INSC 8559 December 2021Dismissed

The CBI alleged that Uttamchand Bohra aided a senior income‑tax officer (A‑1) in acquiring a flat through a company, thereby helping the officer amass assets disproportionate to his known income. The prosecution’s case rested on Bohra’s custody of the sale deed and the fact that his employee witnessed its execution, al

STATE OF M.P.versusRAM MANOHAR PANDEY

[2014] 11 S.C.R. 2689 December 2014Dismissed

Ram Manohar Pandey, a civil engineer on deputation, was charged with corruption offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the Municipal Corporation of Ujjain and the State Government refused to grant sanction for his prosecution while he was in service, yet a charge‑shee

RAJESHWAR SINGHversusSUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8129 December 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a contempt petition filed by Rajeshwar Singh, an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate, who alleged that respondents including Subrata Roy Sahara were intimidating him and attempting to derail the court‑monitored investigation into the 2G Spectrum scam. The petitioner invoked Arti

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusNISHANT SAREEN

2010 INSC 8649 December 2010Dismissed

Nishant Sareen, a Drug Inspector, was caught accepting a bribe and the Vigilance Department sought sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Principal Secretary (Health) first refused sanction, deeming the case frivolous, but later reversed the decision and granted sancti

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusSARVESH BERRY

2004 INSC 7069 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The employee, Sarvesh Berry, was found by the CBI to possess assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, leading to a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a departmental enquiry under Hindustan Petroleum's conduct and discipline rules. Berry filed a writ petition seeking a stay of

C.K. JAFFER SHARIEFversusSTATE (THROUGH CBI)

2012 INSC 5179 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

C.K. Jaffer Sharief, then Union Railway Minister, was accused of having the Managing Directors of RITES and IRCON approve the travel of four persons to London for his medical treatment, allegedly causing pecuniary loss to the PSUs. The FIR alleged that the journeys were arranged without any public interest and that the

MONICA BEDIversusSTATE OF AP.

2010 INSC 7659 November 2010Disposed off

Monica Bedi and four co‑accused were convicted under the Indian Penal Code (sections 120‑B, 419, 420) and the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conspiracy to obtain a passport in an assumed name. Bedi argued that her conviction violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution because she had already been tried and sentenced

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

STATE OF GUJARATversusK. V. JOSEPH ETC.

2000 INSC 5149 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against two Gujarat High Court judgments that imposed strict time‑limits for granting sanction and filing charge‑sheets in corruption cases and declared a paragraph of the State Vigilance Manual ultra vires. The High Court also directed that any delay beyond two months would attract contem

STATE OF GUJARATversusDILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO

2023 INSC 8949 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat prosecuted Sub‑Inspector Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Rao filed an application for discharge under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, contending that the investigating officer had ignored his written

DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2018 INSC 9409 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a DESU employee, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000 from a complainant and to have directed the complainant to give the money to a co‑accused, who accepted it. The trial court acquitted both accused of conspiracy under Section 120‑B IPC but convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2)

THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKOTTAI, TAMILNADUversusA. PARTHIBAN

2006 INSC 6859 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed

A. Parthiban, a public servant, was convicted for demanding and receiving illegal gratification, an act that attracted charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 and one year’s

ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 6689 September 2024Dismissed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued multiple summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requiring the appellants, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, to appear in Delhi and produce documents related to a coal theft and money‑laundering investigation. The appellants challenged the s

MANISH SISODIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 5959 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, was arrested in 2023 in connection with CBI and ED investigations into alleged irregularities in Delhi’s excise policy. He remained in custody for about 17 months without trial, and his multiple bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the Delhi

BABJIversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2018 INSC 6839 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Babji, was accused of demanding Rs.2,100 from a passenger (PW‑4) for a confirmed airline ticket, allegedly to induce an Indian Airlines employee to secure the ticket. The prosecution charged him under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, asserting that the money was a gratification for in

VASANT RAO GUHEversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017 INSC 7189 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Vasant Rao Guhe, a Sub‑Engineer, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial court, and later the High Court, computed his income and expenditures by making presumptive calculations and altered the charge without framing a fre

M/S. HCL LNFOSYSTEM LTD.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2016 INSC 5859 August 2016Dismissed

The case concerned HCL Infosystem Ltd., a co‑accused in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam, where the sole public servant co‑accused had died before any charge was framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The issue was whether the Special Judge appointed under s.3(1) of the PC Act could

P. NALLAMMALversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

1999 INSC 3149 August 1999Dismissed

The case arose from prosecutions of former Tamil Nadu ministers under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to their known lawful income. Their relatives were also charged as co‑accused under Section 109 of the IPC, alleging they had abetted the ministers. The

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusANAND MOHAN &ANR.

2015 INSC 4929 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were public servants, were accused of corrupt practices in the construction of a sub‑station and the Economic Offences Wing sought prior sanction for their prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Administrative Department declined to grant sanction, and the Special Judge direc

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

2014 INSC 4819 July 2014Dismissed

The State of Bihar filed a criminal appeal against an FIR lodged in 2002 against IAS officer Ashok Kumar Singh for alleged corruption while he was Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation. The FIR was issued by the Bihar Vigilance Investigation Bureau after the bifurcation of Bihar into Bihar and Jhar

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADUversusD. SUBRAMANYAM RAJADEVAN

1996 INSC 7219 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Directorate of Vigilance investigated corruption complaints against D. Subramanyam RataDev, a Superintendent of Police, and sent a report to the Tamil Nadu Government. The Government referred the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955,

NIMMAGADDA PRASADversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3299 May 2013Dismissed

The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and 73 others, including Nimmagadda Prasad, under IPC sections 420, 409, 477‑A and the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged land allocation, illegal gratification, hawala transactions and other economic offences. After the charge‑she

Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3319 May 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered the bail application of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, accused in a massive economic offence case involving alleged corruption, land allotments, and money laundering under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI had filed multiple charge sheets and reported that investigations into s

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusV. VIJAY SAI REDDY

2013 INSC 3339 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted to V. Vijay Sai Reddy (A‑2) in a case involving alleged conspiracy, fraud and corruption under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Court had granted bail, and the High Court affirmed it, but the Supreme

NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATIONversusNOIDA & ORS.

2011 INSC 3669 May 2011Disposed off

The Noida Entrepreneurs Association filed a writ petition alleging that the former CEO of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, misused his position between 1993-94 by awarding contracts without tender, evading conversion charges, and illegally converting a 13‑hectare city park

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusJ. JAYALALITHA

2000 INSC 3089 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu alleged that former Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha conspired with ten others to import coal at inflated prices, causing a loss of about Rs 6.5 crore. The Special Judge discharged her, finding the record insufficient to frame a charge, and the Madras High Court affirmed that order. On appeal, the

STATE OF M.P.versusJ.S. BANSAL AND ANR.

1998 INSC 759 February 1998Appeal(s) allowed

J.S. Bansal, a Superintending Engineer, challenged a charge‑sheet issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government, alleging it was stale and issued to block his promotion. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (MPAT) allowed his challenge, ordered a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting and later directed the Sta

SUNIL BHARTI MITTALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2015 INSC 189 January 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether a Special Judge could summon individuals who were not named in the CBI charge‑sheet in the 2G spectrum case, on the basis that they were the "alter ego" of the companies charged. The Court held that while a magistrate may summon a non‑named person if prima facie material exists, the S

T.P. GOPALAKRISHNANversusSTATE OF KERALA

2022 INSC 12628 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Agricultural Officer, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for misappropriating funds during 1992-1994. He argued that the prosecution in the 2003 cases was barred by double jeopardy because he had already been tried, convicted, or acquitted in three earlier cases (1999)

CHENNA BOYANNA KRISHNA YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 9748 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav, a former minister and advocate, was charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for allegedly abetting Abdul Karim Telgi's counterfeit stamp syndicate. The High Court rejected his bail applications, relying on a recorded conversation between Yadav and Telgi as prim

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‑

SHIV SAGAR TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 13148 November 1996

The Supreme Court examined a public interest writ petition challenging the allotment of 52 shops and stalls by the then Minister of Urban Development, Smt. Sheila Kaul. The Court found that the allotments were made without public notice, contrary to the policy she herself had framed in 1994, and were granted to her rel

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

P. DHARAMARAJversusSHANMUGAM & ORS.

2022 INSC 9408 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a cash‑for‑job scam in the Tamil Nadu Metropolitan Transport Corporation where candidates allegedly paid money to secure appointments, implicating the Transport Minister, his brother and personal assistant. An FIR was filed for offences under IPC sections 405, 420 and 506(1); the final police report

BALJINDER PAL KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 10168 September 2015Dismissed

Baljinder Pal Kaur, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Punjab Police, was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found her guilty of taking a bribe to illegally send persons to the USA. A criminal trial under IPC sections 406, 420, 1208 and the Prevention of Corruption Act resulted in her acquittal by a Special Court, with

A. SREENIVASA REDDYversusRAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.

2023 INSC 6828 August 2023Dismissed

The appellant, an Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, was accused of conspiracy to cheat the bank by sanctioning a large corporate loan and was charged under Sections 120‑B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bank initially declined, then later granted, sanct

KAMLESH VERMAversusMAYAWATI AND ORS.

2013 INSC 5268 August 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court reviewed a petition filed by Kamlesh Verma seeking a review of its July 6, 2012 order that quashed FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 against Mayawati, finding that the order was correctly based on the earlier judgment that the 18 September 2003 direction did not authorize a separate FIR on disproportionate asse

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusPARTAP SINGH VERKA

2024 INSC 4838 July 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's order setting aside a trial court's summons of Dr. Partap Singh Verka under Section 319 of the CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that Verka, a doctor employed in a government hospital, dem

PARITALA SUDHAKARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA

2025 INSC 6558 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Revenue Inspector, was accused of demanding a Rs.2,000 bribe to conduct an inquiry into compensation for drought‑damaged trees and of accepting the money, which was allegedly recovered from a bag attached to his motorcycle during a trap operation. The trial court and the High Court convicted him

STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBIversusLALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD Y ADAY

2017 INSC 4528 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand, represented by the CBI, appealed against the Jharkhand High Court’s order quashing several criminal cases arising from the fodder scam on the ground that the accused had already been convicted in one case, invoking Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC (double jeopardy).

NATASHA SINGHversusCBI (STATE)

2013 INSC 3268 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Natasha Singh, was charged under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly inflating an insurance claim. After the prosecution examined 52 witnesses, the appellant examined only one defence witness and then sought to summon three additional witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC. The tr

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusTHE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

2025 INSC 4818 April 2025Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu challenged the Governor's actions in withholding assent to 10 bills and reserving them for the President's consideration after the bills were repassed by the State Legislature. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Governor's powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, including whether

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2024 INSC 2848 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who founded a society that obtained AICTE approvals for several business schools, were charged under Sections 420 and 120B IPC for allegedly cheating the AICTE by concealing that the leased land was mortgaged. After a Special Judicial Magistrate discharged them, the CBI approached the Allahabad High Cou

ARIVAZHAGANversusSTATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

2000 INSC 1288 March 2000Disposed off

Arivazhagan was charged under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the IPC. He filed a defence list of 267 witnesses. The Special Judge examined the list and, on the ground of avoiding delay, allowed only a few witnesses from each division. The Madras High Court slightly i

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusVIKRAM DAS

2019 INSC 1618 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Vikram Das, was convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for assaulting a SC/ST woman and was sentenced by the trial court to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500. The High Court, on the respondent's request, c

ALOK KUMAR VERMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 368 January 2019Disposed off

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India issued orders on 23 October 2018 divesting Director Alok Kumar Verma of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of his powers, functions and supervisory role. The Director challenged the legality of these orders, arguing that under Section 4B(2) of th

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.versusSAROJ KUMAR SAHOO

2005 INSC 5967 December 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa filed FIRs against Saroj Kumar Sahoo and Nalinikanta Muduli for alleged offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. While the investigation was still pending, a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to

STATE OF JHARKHANDversusSHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 11847 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Jharkhand challenged two writ petitions filed by Shiv Shankar Sharma as public‑interest litigations (PILs) that sought a mandamus directing investigative agencies to probe alleged money‑laundering through shell companies and to prosecute the Chief Minister for a mining lease. The Supreme Court examined whe

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CBIversusC. NAGARAJASWAMY

2005 INSC 4937 October 2005Disposed off

The State of Karnataka, represented by the CBI, charged C. Nagarajaswamy under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding illegal gratification and later for misappropriation of funds. In both cases the trial courts took cognizance and conducted full trials, but discharged the accused on the ground that the sanctio

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH INSPECTOR, CBIversusPURNANDU BISWAS

2005 INSC 4947 October 2005Dismissed

Purnandu Biswas, a surveyor in the Mercantile Marine Department, was alleged to have demanded Rs 50,000 as illegal gratification from a sub‑agent (PW‑3) for issuing a clearance certificate for the vessel M.V. Lilly. After the vessel's defects were rectified, the CBI set up a trap on 17 July 1992, during which PW‑3 hand

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P.versusK. NARASIMHACHARY

2005 INSC 4957 October 2005Dismissed

The State appealed the acquittal of K. Narasimhachary, a former Mandal Revenue Inspector, who had been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking a bribe of Rs.600. The High Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the order of sanction issued by the Governor was not proved in accordance with

R. VENKATAKRISHNANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2009 INSC 10377 August 2009Disposed off

The case concerned a massive "call money" scam in which Rs 40 crore of National Housing Bank funds were diverted to broker Harshad Mehta’s account through officials of UCO Bank and NHB. The appellants – senior officials of UCO Bank and NHB – were convicted by a Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences R

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