Role of Panch Witness in Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Role of Panch Witness in Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 

Dealing with a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it has been held in Ved Prakash Maurya v. State of Delhi [2025] GCtR 1949 (Delhi) that "panch witness acts as an independent verifier of the complainant’s version, and it is his presence and corroboration that lend assurance to the allegation of demand of bribe."

It was pointed out that "when the work for which illegal gratification is allegedly demanded had already been completed prior in time, the very motive or occasion for making such a demand becomes inherently improbable. The improbability is further compounded by the fact that the appellant, at the relevant time, was working merely as a beldar in the Delhi Jal Board. It is undisputed that such an employee has no authority to process or sanction applications for water or sewer connections." 

Ultimately accused was acquitted in the case.

Criminal Law : Can Incapability of Doing Work become a Ground for Acquittal under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

Criminal Law : Can Incapability of Doing Work become a Ground for Acquittal under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ? 

It has been held that "a person may not actually be in a position to perform the work for which a bribe is allegedly demanded cannot, by itself, exonerate him, since the offence under the PC Act, 1988 is attracted by the very act of demanding illegal gratification, irrespective of whether the public servant is capable of doing the work".

Case : State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Daga Bachhav [2026] GCtR 344 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

Criminal Law : Principles of Acquittal in Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Criminal Law : Principles of Acquittal in Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 

In this case, there was material to indicate that demand was towards expenses for the material necessary for proposed surgery of complainant to which he categorically admits that he was made aware previously itself by accused no.1 that due to non-availability of surgical material in the Government Hospital, the same would be required to be purchased from market, it cannot be said that amount demanded was only bribe or illegal gratification. Acquittal of accused was held justified. 

State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Ramgir Kailasgir Giri [2026] GCtR 341 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

 Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

S.19 of the PC Act, 1988 is applicable on public servant and deals with cognizance by Court and previous sanction by competent authority. S.19 is not applicable on S.8,9, 10 and 12. Time limit given is 3 months. In an important finding of R.C. Sabharwal v. CBI [2010] GCtR 6281 (Delhi) it was held that the PC Act, 1988 was enacted in the year 1988, much after the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force and the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of PC Act, 1988 have been given overriding effect over the provisions contained in Code.

It was further held that had the intention of the Legislature been to give the same meaning to the term "interlocutory order" in Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, as had been given to this term in the context of Section 397 (2) of the Code, there would have been no necessity of incorporating a specific provision to this effect in Prevention of Corruption Act. Even in the absence of such a provision in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 revisional powers could not have been used in respect of an interlocutory order, in view of the embargo placed by Section 397(2) of the Code, 1973. The Acts of the Legislature are not intended to be superfluous, and the Legislature is presumed to be aware and conscious of all other statutory enactments when it passes a particular legislation. Hence, if the Legislature, despite preexistence of similar provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, chose to make a specific provision in Prevention of Corruption Act so as to take interlocutory orders out of the purview of revisional jurisdiction of the Court, it could not have intended to give same meaning to the expression "interlocutory order" as had been given to this term in the context of the Section 397(2) of the Code.