Prevention of Corruption Act Archives - Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Advocates

Split Verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Prior Sanction for Investigation

By K Rajasekharan 14 January 2026Prevention of Corruption Act, Sanction to Prosecute Govt Servant

In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [2026 INSC 55], the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict regarding the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), which was introduced by the 2018 amendment.

Recovery of Money Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance Insufficient for Conviction

By K Rajasekharan 30 October 2025Prevention of Corruption Act

The Supreme Court, in P Somaraju v The State Of Andhra Pradesh [2025 INSC 1263], reiterated that mere recovery of currency notes, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient for conviction.

No Prior Approval Needed for Arrests in Anti-Corruption Trap Operations

By K Rajasekharan 9 September 2025Prevention of Corruption Act

In Reena N v. State of Kerala [2025:KER:49923] the Kerala High Court has clarified that the requirement for prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not apply when a public servant is arrested during a trap operation.

Supreme Court Quashes Prosecution Launched Without Govt. Sanction

By K Rajasekharan 31 August 2025Prevention of Corruption Act

In Vinod Chandra Semwal v. Special Police Establishment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle that a valid government sanction is a mandatory prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant for certain offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Board of Directors is the Competent Authority to Sanction Prosecution of Cooperative Bank Employees

By K Rajasekharan 30 August 2025Prevention of Corruption Act, Sanction to Prosecute Govt Servant

In K.M. Philip v. State of Kerala, the High Court of Kerala adjudicated a key legal issue: whether the State Government is the competent authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of employees of a service cooperative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

Sanction under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act

By K Rajasekharan 29 August 2025Prevention of Corruption Act, Sanction to Prosecute Govt Servant

In Shankara Bhat and Ors vs. State of Kerala and Ors., the Kerala High Court held that the protection afforded by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), is exclusively confined to offenses arising from a public servant's recommendations or decisions made in the discharge of their official duties.

Need for Sanction under Section 19 of the PCA for Court-Ordered Investigation

By K Rajasekharan 28 August 2025Prevention of Corruption Act, Sanction to Prosecute Govt Servant

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.

Proof of Demand for Bribe Required for Conviction on it

By K Rajasekharan 27 August 2025Prevention of Corruption Act

In the judgment of T. K. Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala [2025 0 KER 24020], the High Court of Kerala held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

Courts Should not Stay Conviction of Corrupt Public Servants: SC

By K Rajasekharan 27 June 2025Prevention of Corruption Act

The courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat.

Recovery of Tainted Money Not Enough for Conviction Without Proof of Demand for Bribe

By K Rajasekharan 28 May 2025Prevention of Corruption Act

Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Lokayuktha Police Davangere v C B Nagaraj [2025 INSC 736].