Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: Prevention of Corruption Act

A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory under the Act for initiating a corruption case against a public servant. The absence of a preliminary inquiry does not justify quashing a case against a public servant solely on that ground. (Para 12 & 16) State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412 : 2025 INSC 471A public servant accused in a corruption case has no inherent right to a hearing prior to the registration of an FIR. (Para 14) State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava H.D., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412 : 2025 INSC 471Conviction of Public Servant – Stay of Conviction – Supreme Court dismissed plea seeking a stay on the conviction of a public servant reaffirming that courts should generally refrain from staying convictions in corruption cases involving public servants. The petitioner, convicted under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, had their sentence suspended by the High Court, but the conviction was not stayed. Finding no compelling reason to interfere with the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea as lacking merit. Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 690Section 2(c)(i), 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Held, stamp vendors are "public servants" under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act, as they perform a public duty by vending stamp papers and are remunerated by the government through discounts on stamp paper purchases, as governed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and related rules. The nature of the duty, not the status of the person, determines their classification as a public servant under the PC Act. Stamp vendors perform a public duty in which the State and public have an interest, and their remuneration via discounts qualifies them as public servants under the PC Act. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's demand and acceptance of illegal gratification (Rs. 2 excess for a Rs. 10 stamp paper). The prosecution's reliance on trap evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the PC Act was set aside. The High Court's judgment affirming the Trial Court's conviction was overturned. (Para 68) Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520 : 2025 INSC 618 : AIR 2025 SC 3153 : 2025 Cri.L.J. 2801Section 7 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 61(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Denial of Anticipatory Bail – The petitioner, an audit inspector, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification for conducting an audit. Co-accused was apprehended red-handed while accepting the bribe, and there was an audio recording corroborating the demand. Held, the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail in corruption cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, such as false implication or politically motivated allegations. The Court reiterated that mere demand or solicitation of a bribe constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the Act. The Court emphasized the severity of corruption and the need to uphold public justice, stating that liberty should be denied to accused persons to ensure a corruption-free society. (Para 12, 21 & 24) Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291 : 2025 INSC 320 : (2025) 4 SCC 493Section 7 - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 6 - Consent of State Government - Bifurcation of States - CBI challenged the judgment of the High Court which quashed criminal proceedings in two cases involving allegations of corruption. The respondents were accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification while serving as public servants in the Central departments. The High Court held that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIRs in Telangana for offences committed in Andhra Pradesh, as the State of Andhra Pradesh had not granted specific consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. The High Court also ruled that the absence of a notification designating a Special Court under the PC Act vitiated the proceedings. Held, the Supreme Court examined the impact of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the continuity of laws post-bifurcation. It held that the general consent granted to the CBI prior to bifurcation continued to apply to both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh unless explicitly repealed or amended. The Court emphasized that the CBI's jurisdiction to investigate offences under the PC Act involving Central Government employees did not require State consent, as the PC Act is a Central legislation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the criminal cases to the Special Judge for CBI Cases for trial. The Court clarified that the CBI's jurisdiction and the validity of the proceedings were not vitiated by the absence of State consent or notification, as the offences involved Central Government employees and were governed by...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: Prevention of Corruption Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags