Corruption & Bribery cases

The prior sanction of the Government, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) in regard to recommendations made or decisions taken, would not be necessary when the act of the public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offence. This is what the Supreme Court (SC) states in the judgement in Shankara Bhat and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2021(5) KHC 248].

The Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) protects the public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution by requiring prior sanction from the Government before they can be prosecuted for acts allegedly committed in the discharge of their official duties and such protection extends even to acts carried out in excess of official duties, as long as there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the discharge of official functions, says the Supreme Court (SC) in G.C. Manjunath v Seetaram [2025 INSC 439].

A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) declares, in Neeraj Dutta v State ( Govt of NCT, New Delhi) [2023(1) KLD 1 (SC), that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a Public Servant is a sine qua non to establish the guilt under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).

When the prosecution failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe, two government employees accused of demanding and accepting bribe were acquitted and that is what happened in Madan Lal v State of Rajasthan [2025 INSC 340].

BNSS has the concept of deemed sanction The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), unlike the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), provides for the concept of deemed sanction for prosecuting a public servant.

Prior sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not needed to prosecute a public servant for perjury under Section 340 read with 195 of the CrPC, says the High Court of Kerala in K.K. Krishnan v State of Kerala and Others [2024/KER/12203].

The government sanction, under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), is a prerequisite for a court in ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on a private complaint, against a public servant, the High Court of Kerala states in  C.V. Balan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

A prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) need not be initiated In all cases of malfeasance or misfeasance, or wrong administration, or in all cases of loss caused to the government while discharging duty by public servants, says the High court of Kerala in Manimekhala S v State of Kerala.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) of Kerala State, has authority to investigate offences involving corruption that take place within the State, committed by a Central Government employee or a State Government employee, says the High Court of Kerala (HCK) in State of Kerala v Navaneeth Krishnan

No prior sanction of the government is required, under section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), for offences like falsification of accounts, breach of trust and misappropriation of funds or acts which are ex facie criminal in nature. The Kerala High Court held this in Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala & Ors, while deciding a few connected matters.

Both bribe giving and bribe taking are offences under Indian law. They are termed offences originally by Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and later by the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988, which now deals with the offences.