Economic Offences and Asset Confiscation › The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Reviewed by Ravi SisodiaLast reviewed 5 August 202631 section identifiers5 instrument articlesPrint-ready

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Provision-wise Act, subordinate instruments, Finin2min interpretation, examples, evidence controls and practical Q&A.

Finin2min Act Summary

This repository converts The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 into a working legal-control system: classify the issue, identify the exact provision and instrument, fix the event date, compute the amount/deadline, obtain authority, preserve evidence and select the correct remedy.

Act structure and section map

Section range	Editorial topic map	Start
1-5	Preliminary And Special Judges	Open
6-13	Offences, Bribery And Commercial Organisations	Open
14-18	Habitual Offences, Abetment, Sanction And Investigation	Open
19-25	Sanction, Presumptions And Trial	Open
26-31	Appeals, Rules And Miscellaneous	Open

Full section index (31)

Sec 1 Sec 2 Sec 3 Sec 4 Sec 5 Sec 6 Sec 7 Sec 8 Sec 9 Sec 10 Sec 11 Sec 12 Sec 13 Sec 14 Sec 15 Sec 16 Sec 17 Sec 18 Sec 19 Sec 20 Sec 21 Sec 22 Sec 23 Sec 24 Sec 25 Sec 26 Sec 27 Sec 28 Sec 29 Sec 30 Sec 31

Rules, Regulations, notifications and directions

Open the complete instrument register →

Downloads

Act overview PDF · One-page cheat sheet · Section register CSV

Landmark case law

Neeraj Dutta v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2022) — Constitution Bench clarified that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 13 can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, not solely by the complainant's testimony.
P. Satyanarayana Murthy v District Inspector of Police (2015) — held that proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of a bribe is the sine qua non for a conviction under the Act.
Subramanian Swamy v Manmohan Singh (2012) — on the competent authority's obligation to decide a sanction-for-prosecution request within a reasonable time.
State of Gujarat v Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah — on the scope of "public servant" for office-bearers of cooperative institutions.
N. Vijayakumar v State of Tamil Nadu — on the presumption under Section 20 following proof of demand and recovery.
CBI v Ramesh Gelli — held that chairman/officials of a private bank are "public servants" for the purposes of the Act, read with the Banking Regulation Act.

Case summaries are directional pointers only; verify the certified judgment, citation and current appellate status before relying on any holding.

Source boundary

Section identifiers and professional interpretation pages are provided for implementation and navigation. Exact current words, inserted/omitted provisions, headings, provisos, explanations, commencement and State variations must be certified against the official source before the corpus is labelled full source-controlled.