A charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) is one of the most serious allegations a public official, government contractor, or private sector professional can face. Investigations are typically conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the state anti-corruption bureau — agencies with significant resources and a high-profile mandate.
The 2018 amendment to the PC Act significantly widened its scope. Bribe-givers are now liable under the Act (Section 8), not just bribe-takers. Abetment provisions were strengthened. And for cases involving commercial organisations, a new framework of corporate liability was introduced under Section 9. What used to be a statute focused almost entirely on public servants now reaches much further.
Adv. Shailendra Singh defends clients in anti-corruption proceedings at every stage — from the initial CBI inquiry and trap case registration to bail hearings, trial, and appeal before the High Court and Supreme Court. His practice in criminal and economic offences gives him a thorough understanding of how these investigations are structured and where they are most susceptible to legal challenge.
When a person has reason to believe they may be arrested in connection with a corruption investigation, anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS) is an important protection. Courts consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s role in the alleged offence, and the likelihood of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence.
In CBI and anti-corruption matters, anticipatory bail applications are often contested vigorously by the prosecution. Having counsel who understands the specific considerations that apply — including the interplay between the PC Act and the general bail jurisprudence — is essential.
Under Section 19 of the PC Act, prosecuting a public servant requires prior sanction from the appropriate government authority. The absence of valid sanction, or a sanction granted without proper application of mind, can be a ground to challenge the prosecution — sometimes at a very early stage, before the trial even begins.
We examine the sanction order carefully in every PC Act case we handle. Where the sanction is legally vulnerable, we raise the challenge promptly and at the correct stage of the proceedings.
Yes, since the 2018 amendment. A private person or company that abets or pays a bribe to a public servant is liable under Section 8 of the Act. Commercial organisations can also be prosecuted under Section 9 where bribery is carried out for the organisation's benefit.
A trap case involves a controlled operation by the CBI or anti-corruption bureau, typically conducted in response to a bribe demand complaint. Unlike DA cases or disproportionate asset inquiries that are based on documentary evidence, trap cases are based on direct evidence of bribe acceptance — making the procedural compliance of the investigating agency a central battleground.
Yes. While courts apply the law strictly in serious corruption matters, anticipatory bail remains available and can be granted where the applicant can demonstrate that the allegations are prima facie weak, the accused has co-operated with the investigation, or there is no risk of flight or evidence tampering.
Very important. The Supreme Court has held that sanction under Section 19 is a jurisdictional requirement — not a mere formality. A defective or absent sanction can render the entire prosecution invalid. We scrutinise the sanction order in every matter as a matter of routine.
