Disputes & Arbitration
Anti-Corruption and the Prevention of Corruption Act
Defence and advice in Prevention of Corruption Act matters, from CBI and anti-corruption-bureau investigations to bribery and disproportionate-assets trials.
Corruption prosecutions are among the most document-intensive of all criminal matters. A bribery case turns on proof of demand and acceptance; a disproportionate-assets case is effectively an audit, comparing a public servant's assets against known sources of income over a defined period. The firm advises and defends public servants, and the private persons drawn into these cases, before the Special Judges who try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and on appeal before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
The 2018 amendment reshaped this area. It rewrote the offences, made the bribe-giver liable for the first time, narrowed criminal misconduct, and introduced a requirement of prior approval before a public servant can even be investigated. Working within this amended framework, and knowing which version of the law applies to a given period, is the starting point of every current case.
The offences: bribery and criminal misconduct
After the 2018 amendment, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishes a public servant who demands or accepts an undue advantage, and Section 8 now also punishes the person who gives or offers it, removing the immunity the bribe-giver previously enjoyed. Section 9 addresses bribery involving commercial organisations. Criminal misconduct under Section 13 was narrowed, and now centres on misappropriation and on a public servant being in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
Proof of demand has long been treated as essential. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) a Constitution Bench clarified that where direct evidence of the demand is unavailable, for instance because the complainant has died or turned hostile, demand and acceptance can still be established by inference from the other evidence, read with the statutory presumption under Section 20. The firm prepares both prosecution and defence in these cases on the strength of that evidence, not on assumption.
Disproportionate assets
A disproportionate-assets case under Section 13(1)(b) alleges that, during a defined check period, a public servant came to hold assets whose value cannot be explained by their known and lawful sources of income. These cases are decided on the accuracy of the computation: which assets and incomes are counted, how they are valued, what expenditure is allowed, and over what period.
Much of the defence, and much of a sound prosecution, lies in getting that accounting right. The firm's work includes reconstructing the income and asset position carefully from the financial records, identifying errors and double-counting, and accounting for lawful sources the investigation may have overlooked.
Investigation, Section 17A approval and sanction
The 2018 amendment introduced Section 17A, which requires prior approval of the appropriate authority before a police officer may even inquire into or investigate an offence alleged against a public servant in relation to their official functions, subject to limited exceptions. Separately, Section 19 requires previous sanction before a serving public servant can be prosecuted. Both requirements are frequent and serious points of contest, and an investigation or prosecution that ignores them is open to challenge.
These safeguards exist against a constitutional backdrop. In Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI the Supreme Court struck down an earlier provision that had shielded senior officials from investigation without prior approval, holding it offended the equality guarantee. The firm advises on the validity of approvals and sanctions, and on the consequences when the required approval was never obtained.
Evidence, trial and bail
Corruption trials turn heavily on trap proceedings and on recorded evidence: marked currency, audio and video recordings, and the financial documents in a disproportionate-assets case. Electronic recordings must be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and their authenticity and integrity are often genuinely in issue. The firm's technology background is applied here, to the recordings, the devices and the financial data.
On bail, the principle in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI applies: detention before conviction is not a punishment, and the seriousness of a corruption charge does not by itself justify keeping a person in custody through a long trial. Bail and the conduct of the trial are approached on the specific evidence, candidly assessed.
The legal framework
The principal statutes and the provisions that most often decide these matters. Statute text can be read in the firm's Legal Library; always check the current version at the official source.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) · Act 49 of 1988
- Section 7 — a public servant demanding or accepting an undue advantage.
- Section 8 — giving or offering a bribe to a public servant (now an offence).
- Section 13(1)(b) — criminal misconduct: assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
- Section 17A — prior approval required before investigating a public servant's official acts.
- Sections 19, 20 — previous sanction to prosecute, and the presumption against an accused who accepted gratification.
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 · Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- CVC Act — the statutory body that supervises vigilance and certain CBI functions.
- Lokpal Act — the anti-corruption ombudsman for public functionaries at the central level.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 · Act 47 of 2023
- Section 63 — admissibility and certification of electronic records, including trap recordings.
Key judgments
Grouped by issue. Each case is cited from the court's own record; open a heading to read it.
Proof of demand 1
Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) Supreme Court
(2023) 4 SCC 731
Where direct evidence of the demand for a bribe is unavailable, demand and acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be proved by inference from the other evidence, read with the presumption under Section 20.
Investigation & sanction 1
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI Supreme Court
(2014) 8 SCC 682
Struck down the provision that required prior approval before investigating senior public servants, holding that shielding a class of officials from investigation offended the equality guarantee under Article 14.
Bail 1
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI Supreme Court
(2012) 1 SCC 40
Bail secures attendance at trial and is not a punishment before conviction; the seriousness of an economic or corruption charge alone does not justify prolonged pre-trial detention.
How we work on these matters
One advocate remains responsible for the matter from the inquiry stage through to trial and appeal, so the strategy stays consistent across what are often long-running cases.
The defence is built on the record: the trap papers, the sanction and approval under Sections 17A and 19, and, in a disproportionate-assets case, the detailed reconstruction of income and assets.
Advice is candid about the strength of the case on both demand and the asset computation, and about realistic prospects on bail and at trial. The firm does not overstate what the evidence will bear.
Frequently asked questions
Is the person who gives a bribe now also liable?
Yes. Since the 2018 amendment, Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes giving or offering an undue advantage to a public servant an offence in its own right, removing the immunity the bribe-giver previously had. There is a narrow protection for a person who is compelled to pay and reports it promptly.
What is Section 17A approval?
Section 17A requires a police officer to obtain prior approval of the appropriate authority before inquiring into or investigating an offence alleged against a public servant in relation to their official functions. An investigation begun without that approval, where it was required, can be challenged.
What is a disproportionate-assets case?
It is a case under Section 13(1)(b) alleging that, over a defined check period, a public servant held assets that cannot be accounted for by known and lawful sources of income. These cases are decided on the accuracy of the asset-and-income computation, which is where much of the contest lies.
Can a bribery case succeed if the complainant turns hostile?
It can. In Neeraj Dutta the Supreme Court held that where direct evidence of demand is unavailable, demand and acceptance may be proved by inference from the other evidence together with the statutory presumption. The strength of that other evidence becomes central.
Is sanction needed to prosecute a public servant?
Yes. Section 19 requires the previous sanction of the competent authority before a court can take cognizance of certain offences against a public servant. A valid sanction, and before that a valid Section 17A approval, are essential, and their absence or invalidity is a recognised ground of challenge.
This note is general information on the law as at Jun 2026, not legal advice on any specific matter. The law changes; for advice on your facts, please speak to the firm.
Tell us about your matter.
Share the facts and we will tell you, candidly, where you stand and how we can help.