Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

355 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–355.

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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 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

SANJAY KUMAR RAIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 2927 May 2021Directions issued

The appellant, Sanjay Kumar Rai, was charged under Sections 504 and 506 IPC for allegedly threatening a journalist and sought discharge under Section 239 CrPC, claiming the investigation was biased and the complainant’s testimony unreliable. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the discharge application, and the High

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR.

2025 INSC 4717 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR registered against Sri Channakeshava H.D., an executive engineer, for alleged disproportionate assets under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court had held that the Superintendent of Polic

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.versusRABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI

2022 INSC 4057 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a clerk, was suspended and later dismissed by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on a complaint that he demanded a bribe to clear retirement formalities, leading to a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The employer initiated departmental proceedings, which the respondent challenged in the

SHANTI LAL MEENAversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI, CBI

2015 INSC 9857 April 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a Sub‑Inspector of Police, was caught red‑handed accepting a bribe of Rs 25,000 and was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, receiving two years’ rigorous imprisonment for each offence with fines. The appeal before the Supreme Court was limite

GOPAKUMAR B. NAIRversusC.B.I. & ANR.

2014 INSC 2557 April 2014Dismissed

The appellant, GOPAKUMAR B. Nair, sought to have criminal proceedings quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that a private settlement with the bank had extinguished the dispute. The High Court of Kerala declined to quash the case, where the appellant was charged with criminal conspiracy under the Prevention of

THE STATE OF PUNJABversusHARI KESH

2025 INSC 507 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Punjab prosecuted Hari Kesh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after a sanction order dated 19‑Nov‑2018 was issued. The trial had commenced and the prosecution had examined several witnesses when the accused filed a petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the sanct

M.E. SHIVALINGAMURTHYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU

2020 INSC 67 January 2020Dismissed

The case involved a partnership firm (AMC) whose reconstitution in 2009 led the Director of Mines and Geology of Karnataka (the appellant) to issue Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) to the new partners. The Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that the appellant acted without the prior State Government sanction requir

HEMAversusSTATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS

2013 INSC 97 January 2013Disposed off

The appellant, a clerk in a travel agency, was convicted under sections 120B, 420, 511, 465 and 471 of the IPC for conspiring to obtain 42 passports using forged applications and documents. The prosecution alleged that the travel agency, run by a co‑accused, submitted ante‑dated applications with duplicate file numbers

THE STATE OF TELANGANAversusSRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY

2019 INSC 13336 December 2019Disposed off

The State of Telangana filed a criminal appeal against a Hyderabad High Court order that partially quashed a charge‑sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against former OSD Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. The High Court had held that the

ROHILKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, BAREILLYversusMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANOTHER

2013 INSC 5956 September 2013Dismissed

Rohilkhand Medical College, established in 2005, sought renewal of its MBBS intake for the 2008‑09 batch, but the Medical Council of India (MCI) repeatedly recommended non‑renewal due to deficiencies. Despite this, the Central Government granted permission after a central inspection team, which was later found by the C

MANZOOR ALI KHANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 5266 August 2014Disposed off

The petition sought a declaration that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires prior sanction before a public servant can be prosecuted, is unconstitutional and that all pending cases should proceed without such sanction. The Court examined whether the sanction requirement infringes the rig

MS. MAYAWATIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2012 INSC 2726 July 2012Case Allowed

Mayawati, then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003, which the CBI had lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging disproportionate assets. The FIR was said to be based on a Sup

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusP. VENKATESHWARLU

2015 INSC 3846 May 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Sub Registrar, was caught in a police‑laid trap after demanding a bribe of Rs.500 for registering a will. The prosecution proved demand and acceptance through eyewitness testimony, a positive phenolphthalein test, and the unchallenged recovery of the tainted money. The High Court acquitted the accused

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusDIRECTOR, CENTERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2014 INSC 3586 May 2014Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 6‑A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (inserted by Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003), which required prior approval of the Central Government before the CBI could inquire into or investigate alleged offences u

M/S. NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN SINGHversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA RANCHI, JHARKHAND

2026 INSC 1306 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) had two parcels of land provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and a confirmation order under s.8(3) was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal under s.26. While the appeal was pending, the Enforcement Directorate filed a

ARVIND DHAMversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2026 INSC 126 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former promoter and non‑executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was arrested in July 2024 on allegations of massive bank fraud and money‑laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Despite cooperating with the investigation and being the sole accused taken into custody among 28

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBI/ACB/BANGALOREversusB.A. SRINIVASAN AND ANR.

2019 INSC 13225 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

B.A. Srinivasan, a former Assistant General Manager of Vijaya Bank who retired on 31‑Oct‑2012, was alleged to have conspired with others to fraudulently sanction and disburse loans, violating bank rules. An FIR was lodged in 2013 and a charge‑sheet filed in 2014, charging him under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,

STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEversusR. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.

2022 INSC 9155 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu, through a Deputy Superintendent of Police, appealed against the High Court’s order discharging a public servant (R. Soundirarasu) and his wife from prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC s.109 for possessing assets disproportionate to the servant’s known sources of inc

P. CHIDAMBARAMversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2019 INSC 10105 September 2019Dismissed

The appellant, former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, was charged with alleged irregularities in a foreign investment clearance and money‑laundering offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act (PMLA). The Enforcement Directorate (ED) produced a sealed cover containing doc

SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 5115 August 2013Disposed off

The appellant, Shridhar Namdeo Lawand, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and appealed to the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal without the appellant being present and without examining the evidence, relying solely on the State’s counsel. The Supreme Court he

MUKHTIAR SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2016 INSC 4985 July 2016Dismissed

Mukhtiar Singh, a revenue patwari, demanded Rs.600 from a complainant for a copy of a land record and was caught red‑handed when a police‑laid trap involving phenolphthalein‑treated currency notes was executed. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

SURINDERJIT SINGH MAND & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2016 INSC 4935 July 2016Dismissed

The case concerned the arrest and alleged illegal detention of Neeraj Kumar between 24‑06‑1999 and 28‑06‑1999 by two Deputy Superintendents of Police, Surinderjit Singh Mand and P.S. Parmar. The prosecution, after obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for the later arrest on 28‑06‑1999, sought to take cogniz

J. SEKAR @SEKAR REDDYversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2022 INSC 5195 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

J. Sekar Reddy, managing partner of SRS Mining, was searched by the Income Tax Department in December 2016, leading to the seizure of about Rs 107 crore in cash and gold. The CBI registered FIRs for scheduled offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached the

SYED YOUSUF HUSSAINversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2013 INSC 2175 April 2013Dismissed

Two traffic police officers intercepted a lorry on 4 January 1994, demanded Rs 100 to return the vehicle's documents and to refrain from filing a traffic case. The driver complained, a trap was set, and the co‑accused accepted the bribe, which was later recovered. Both were convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read

L. LAXMIKANTAversusSTATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA

2015 INSC 975 February 2015Dismissed

The appellant, a hostel warden, was accused of demanding Rs.2000 as illegal gratification from a student seeking re‑admission to the hostel. The student complained to the Lokayukta, leading to a sting operation where the money, marked with a chemical that turned pink, was recovered from the warden's pocket. The trial c

STATE THROUGH CBI NEW DELHIversusJITENDER KUMAR SINGH

2014 INSC 805 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two appeals concerning the jurisdiction of Special Judges appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). In the first appeal, a public servant died after the Special Judge had framed charges under the PC Act and IPC against him and several private persons. The Court held tha

GURDEV SINGH BHALLAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

2024 INSC 225 January 2024Dismissed

The appellant, an Inspector, was summoned along with three other police officials under Section 319 of the CrPC following allegations that they demanded money and tortured the accused and his family in a misappropriation case. The trial court allowed the summoning, the High Court upheld that order, and the appellant ch

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERSversusAJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

2021 INSC 75 January 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Ajay Kumar Srivastava, a clerk of State Bank of India, was charged with seven counts of misappropriating bank funds. The enquiry officer found charges 2‑7 proved and charge 1 not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed on charge 1, held it proved, but upheld the findings on charges 2‑7 and dismissed the employee.

M/S KULJA INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusCHIEF GEN. MANAGER W.T. PROJ. BSNL AND ORS.

2013 INSC 6734 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kulja Industries Ltd., supplied telecom equipment to BSNL under two tenders. BSNL later alleged that the appellant, in collusion with BSNL officials, received excess payments of Rs 7.98 crore through duplicate bills and blacklisted the appellant permanently. The appellant challenged the blacklisting, arg

U. SUBHADRAMMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF A.P. REP. BY PUB. PROSECUTOR & ANR.

2016 INSC 4884 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Ramachandraiah was charged under IPC sections 409, 468 and 471 for misappropriating Rs. 6,57,355.90. He died in 1991 while the trial was pending; the trial court nevertheless recorded a finding that he alone had committed the offence, though he could not be convicted. The State then invoked Clause 3 of the Criminal Law

STATE THROUGH C.B.I., ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, CHANDIGARHversusSANJIV BHALLA & ANR.

2014 INSC 9804 July 2014Dismissed

The State (through CBI) appealed against a High Court order that released three accused—Sanjiv Bhalla, Major Purshotam Singh and R.P. Chopra—on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after they were convicted of conspiracy to cheat under IPC sections 120‑B and 420. Only the fourth accused

ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALAversusC.B.I

2011 INSC 4484 July 2011Dismissed

The appellants, Abhay Singh Chautala and Ajay Singh Chautala, were tried for offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging accumulation of disproportionate assets while serving as Members of Legislative Assembly. No prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act was obtained, and

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N

2022 INSC 3844 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The case concerned Major R. Metri, a Recruiting Medical Officer, who was convicted by a General Court Martial for helping candidates clear Army recruitment rallies in exchange for money, under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Army Act. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) set aside the court‑martial’s conviction und

SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 1614 March 2024Reference answered

The appellant, Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting a bribe to vote for an independent candidate in a Rajya Sabha election, but she ultimately voted for her party's candidate. She sought to quash the charges invoking Artic

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusJAGAT RAM

2024 INSC 9523 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI appealed a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that acquitted Jagat Ram, a public servant, on the ground that the sanction order authorising prosecution was not examined. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on evidence of a bribe demand and ac

N.V. SUBBA RAOversusSTATE, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SPE,VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.

2012 INSC 5603 December 2012Dismissed

The case involved a bank manager (A‑1) and a private firm proprietor (A‑2) who were accused of conspiring to defraud the Central Bank of India by sanctioning loans without obtaining mandatory undertaking letters, bypassing pre‑inspection requirements, and crediting the proceeds to A‑2’s account. The prosecution present

MMTC LIMITEDversusANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PVT. LIMITED

2025 INSC 12793 November 2025Dismissed

MMTC Limited entered a Long Term Agreement with Anglo American Metallurgical Coal for the supply of coking coal, but a dispute arose over the price and unlifted quantities, leading to an arbitral award in favour of Anglo. MMTC challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was reje

TARINA SENversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2024 INSC 7523 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, two women related to a co‑accused, were charged under Sections 120‑B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged loan fraud involving a bank. The borrowers later entered into a One‑Time Settlement with the bank, paid the full amount

K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.

2024 INSC 7503 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were wives of borrowers, were charged by the CBI under sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged fraud in a bank loan. The borrowers had settled the entire debt through a One Time Settlement and the bank closed the loan account, obtaining a No Dues Certificate. The appella

RAM LALversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018 INSC 9183 October 2018Case Partly allowed

Ram Lal, a peon employed by United Commercial Bank, was assigned clerical duties of a cash clerk and allegedly misappropriated Rs.38,500 by pocketing deposits and forging entries to enable withdrawals. The prosecution relied heavily on two extra‑judicial confession statements made by the accused in the presence of seni

SHAHID BALWAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 5863 September 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether its own orders dated 11 April 2011 and 9 November 2012, issued under Articles 136 and 142 while monitoring the 2G spectrum scam investigation, could be recalled. The petitioners argued that the orders infringed their right to approach the High Courts under Articles 226, 227 and Sectio

STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICEversusS. SUBBEGOWDA

2023 INSC 6693 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order that discharged S. Subbegowda, an executive engineer, from charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent had faced a charge of amassing disproportionate wealth and the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses a

VIJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2011 INSC 5423 August 2011Disposed off

Vijay Kumar, the father of Ruchi Saxena, filed a complaint alleging that officials of the Nagar Palika demanded a bribe to settle a land dispute. Two officials were arrested and tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused sought to summon Ruchi Saxena as a court witness under Section 311 of the Code

BHIARU RAM AND ORS.versusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4703 August 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, accused in a CBI case under the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetting the possession of disproportionate assets by a senior income‑tax officer, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to move the trial from the Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai to a Sp

DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2016 INSC 4413 June 2016Case Allowed

Dr. Rini Johar, a doctor, and a senior advocate were arrested in November 2012 on a FIR alleging fraud under IPC sections 420 and 34 and the Information Technology Act. The arrest was carried out without complying with Sections 41 and 41‑A of the CrPC, nor the D.K. Basu guidelines, and the petitioners were taken to Bho

VIDYA DHAR & ORS.versusMULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. LTD.

2013 INSC 3013 May 2013Dismissed

Three petitioners convicted in the Junior Basic Trained (JBT) teachers recruitment scam appealed their convictions before the Delhi High Court. While the appeal was pending, the respondent, a television producer, sought to broadcast a dramatized episode of "Crime Patrol Dastak" depicting the scam. The petitioners obtai

DEVINDER KUMAR BANSALversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2025 INSC 3203 March 2025Dismissed

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

SACHIN KUMAR & ORS.versusDELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ORS.

2021 INSC 1473 March 2021Disposed off

The Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) conducted a two‑tier examination for 231 Head Clerk vacancies in 2009, but the Tier‑I exam was delayed until 2014 and only 8,224 of 62,056 applicants appeared. Numerous complaints of question‑paper leakage, mass cheating, lack of randomisation and impersonation led

PHULA SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2014 INSC 1613 March 2014Dismissed

The appellant, a Kanungo, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after a trap was laid by the complainant. Although the trial court acquitted him, the High Court convicted him, sentencing him to one year imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the

CENTRE FOR PIL & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2011 INSC 1753 March 2011Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the legality of Shri P.J. Thomas's appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, which was based on a recommendation by the High Powered Committee (HPC). The Court found that the HPC failed to consider material indicating pendi

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusPRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE

2025 INSC 1493 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, an Assistant Engineer of the Airports Authority of India, was arrested and convicted for demanding illegal gratification, leading to his dismissal from service. After being acquitted on benefit of doubt in a criminal appeal, he sought reinstatement, but the Authority initiated fresh disciplinary proceed

N. VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2021 INSC 603 February 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Sanitary Inspector, was charged under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs.500 and a cell phone as bribe from a supervisor to process a contract extension. The trial court acquitted him, but the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him, r

OPTO CIRCUIT INDIA LTD.versusAXIS BANK & ORS.

2021 INSC 563 February 2021Case Partly allowed

The Enforcement Directorate, invoking the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), issued a communication on 15 May 2020 directing several banks to debit‑freeze the accounts of Opto Circuit India Ltd. The company challenged the order, seeking its quash and the defreezing of the accounts to enable payment of sta

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusFATEHKARAN MEHDU

2017 INSC 1043 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the High Court’s order quashing charges framed by a Special Judge against mining engineer Fatehkaran Mehdu and Kishan Singh Rawat under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges alleged that Mehdu, while granting a quarry licence, sanctioned an area of 80,000 sq. ft. on

VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALIversusC.B.I.

2014 INSC 10342 December 2014Disposed off

Vinayak Narayan Deosthali, an assistant manager of UCO Bank, was convicted for diverting Rs 7.75 crore of public funds belonging to the Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC) to the private account of broker Harshad S. Mehta. The Special Court found that he issued bank receipts for securities that did not exist, f

HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2018 INSC 10392 November 2018Disposed off

The Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) was granted lease of government land to build a world‑class cricket stadium, later receiving additional land for a club house and a hotel at commercial rates. Two FIRs were filed alleging illegal lease grants, cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the Preve

ARUN KUMAR AGGARWALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 6442 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant complained to the Lokayukta that three government officials had caused a loss of Rs.4 crore to the State of Madhya Pradesh by purchasing land at inflated prices. The Lokayukta police investigated, exonerated the officials and filed a closure report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge

STATE OF PUNJABversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

2011 INSC 6392 September 2011Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over fresh investigation of several FIRs, including one for which a charge‑sheet had already been filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petition raised the question whether

NEERA YADAVversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

2017 INSC 6982 August 2017Case Partly allowed

Neera Yadav, while serving as Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), filed ante‑dated and incomplete applications to obtain residential plots for herself and her daughters, manipulated the layout plan to enlarge her plot, and secured shop allotments for her da

RAJIV KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

2017 INSC 6992 August 2017Case Partly allowed

The case involved the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA, Rajiv Kumar, and the Chairperson‑Chief Executive Officer, Neera Yadav, who were accused of conspiring to illegally convert a government guest‑house plot into a residential plot and allot it to Kumar at a substantially lower premium, thereby obtaining a valu

P. PARASURAMI REDDYversusSTATE OF A.P.

2011 INSC 5352 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Mandal Development Officer, was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a Rs.500 bribe in connection with a loan for a community irrigation well. The complainant alleged that the demand was made on 31‑12‑1993 and reiterated on 6‑1‑19

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 5682 July 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, including Common Cause, challenged the appointments of K.V. Chowdary as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner (VC) on the ground that the selections violated the constitutional principles of impeccable and institutional integrity. They alleged that Chowdary had

P. SANJEEVA RAOversusTHE STATE OF A.P.

2012 INSC 2602 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

P. Sanjeeva Rao was tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and receiving a bribe. During the trial, prosecution witnesses PW1 (the complainant) and PW2 (an independent witness) were examined, but their cross‑examination was deferred pending the examination of the trap‑laying officer PW11. The appell

C.B.I. BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELLversusRAMESH GELLI & ORS.

2016 INSC 11802 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI Bank Securities & Fraud Cell appealed against the Mumbai High Court’s judgment in criminal revision applications involving Ramesh Gelli and others. The appeal contested the accuracy of statutory citations in paragraph 25 of the High Court’s order, which incorrectly referred to Section 46 of the Banking Regulati

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.versusTUNCAY ALANKUS & ANR.

2013 INSC 2032 April 2013Dismissed

National Fertilizers Ltd. (NFL) paid $38 million for urea to a Turkish company, Karsan, but never received the product. The manager of Karsan, Tuncay Alankus, was extradited to India and faced criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court, on 4 September 2006 and again on 14 December 2006, restrained Alankus from withdrawing

STATE OF GUJARATversusBHALCHANDRA LAXMISHANKAR DAVE

2021 INSC 532 February 2021

The State of Gujarat prosecuted Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave, an Assistant Director, under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge, Bharuch, after a full trial, convicted him and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000. On appeal, th

CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 10911 December 2017Dismissed

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms filed a public‑interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Supreme Court to constitute a Special Investigation Team, headed by a retired Chief Justice of India, to probe an FIR (RCIO(A)/2017‑AC.III) alleging conspiracy and bribes to obtain a favourab

UNION OF INDIA ETC. REP. THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEversusT. NATHAMUNI

2014 INSC 8241 December 2014Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint of bribery was lodged against T. Nathamuni, an Income Tax Inspector, leading to a CBI case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigating officer, initially an Inspector of Police, was replaced by Sub‑Inspector G.A. Suriya Kumar after a petition under Section 17 of the Act obtained permissi

SUDHIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 7251 October 2015Dismissed

The case involved two officials of the Rural Water Supply Department of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, accused of misappropriating public funds allocated for rural drinking‑water schemes. FIRs were filed after an enquiry by the Revenue Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, alleging large sums were siphoned through fictitious

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusJAGJIT SINGH

2013 INSC 6641 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI filed a criminal case against Jagjit Singh and others for cheating and forgery under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, alleging that they obtained bank loans through forged documents with the collusion of bank officials. The accused later settled the debt with Indian Overseas Bank by complying with an order of the Debt

ANIL KUMAR & ORS.versusM. K. AIYAPPA & ANR.

2013 INSC 6661 October 2013Dismissed

The appellants filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC alleging that the respondent, a public servant, committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge referred the complaint for investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without obtaining

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusM. SIVAMANI

2017 INSC 6951 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The CBI filed a charge sheet alleging a false insurance claim and charged several persons, including advocate M. Sivamani, under IPC sections 182, 120‑B, 420, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sivamani moved a petition invoking CrPC s.195(1)(a)(i), contending that the court could not take cognizance of the

SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2026 INSC 6661 July 2026Dismissed

The appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case involving a mule company and was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IT Act. After being remanded, the investigating agency filed a charge‑sheet on 2 September 2025, but failed to

ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD.versusREGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS

2013 INSC 3741 July 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, including Essar Teleholdings Ltd., challenged the Delhi High Court's administrative order and the NCT of Delhi's notification appointing a Special Judge to try the 2G spectrum case, arguing that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to try IPC offences (420/120‑B) arising from the same transaction. The

B. RAGHUVIR ACHARYAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2013 INSC 3801 July 2013Disposed off

The case involved a Rs 65 crore investment in CANCIGO units of Canbank Mutual Fund (CMF) by four subscribers, where B. Raghuvir Acharya (Trustee/General Manager) and Hiten P. Dalal (approved broker) were alleged to have obtained a false brokerage of Rs 32.5 lakhs. The Special Court convicted Acharya and Dalal, but acqu

AMAN BHATIAversusSTATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

2025 INSC 6181 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a licensed stamp vendor, was caught in a sting operation after demanding Rs 12 for a Rs 10 stamp paper and was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The key issue was whether a licensed stamp vendor qualifies as a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(i)

STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BENGALURUversusM.R. HIREMATH

2019 INSC 6111 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station appealed against a High Court order that quashed criminal proceedings against M.R. Hiremath on the ground that a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act was not produced. The Court examined whether the certificate must be produced at the stage of filing the c

GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDINGversusCBI AND ANR

2012 INSC 1961 May 2012Disposed off

The CBI investigated a 2000 fake encounter at Pathribal in Jammu & Kashmir, where five alleged terrorists were killed by members of the 7 Rashtriya Rifles, and filed a charge‑sheet against several army officers. The officers invoked Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, claiming that

LALU PRASAD YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2010 INSC 1881 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the State of Bihar could file an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an acquittal rendered by a Special CBI Judge when the offence was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI). The Court held that the opening words "save as o

THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANRversusAMAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC

2023 INSC 1891 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Chhattisgarh filed criminal appeals against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order quashing FIR No. 9/2020, which alleged that Aman Kumar Singh (AS) and his wife Yasmin Singh (YS) had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICEversusTR N SEENIVASAGAN

2021 INSC 1251 March 2021Leave Granted & Allowed

In 2010 an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act was lodged against T. N. Seenivasagan, a chief engineer of TANGEDCO, for allegedly demanding a bribe. The sanction to prosecute was issued by the Chairman of TANGEDCO, purportedly on behalf of the Board, and the trial proceeded with witnesses PW‑1 (Chairman) and PW‑

K.S. PANDURANGAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

2013 INSC 1311 March 2013Disposed off

The appellant, a superintendent at KAVIKA, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a Rs 5,000 bribe in exchange for allocating transport loads. The Supreme Court examined whether the statutory presumption under s.20 of the Act could be rebutted; it held that the appellant’

THE STATE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusA. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 111 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed appeals against a High Court order that quashed FIRs and subsequent proceedings against two Central Government employees accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents argued that, following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the CBI req

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