Section 161
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rep. by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), s. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Rep. by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), s. 31.
Section 161, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
No provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is textually close to this one. No close match found
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 18
- Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Act s. 12 Members, Officers and employees of the Commissionerate to be public servants
- Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act s. 124 Members, officers and servants of the Board to be public servants
- Central Provinces Court of Wards Act s. 19 Liabilities, etc., of managers and other servants of Court of Wards
- Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Act-1978 s. 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act s. 482
- Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act s. 120
- Indian Telegraph Act s. 31 Bribery
- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Central Act 13 of 1885) s. 31 Bribery
- s. 109 Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment
- Karnataka Good Samaritan and medical professional (protection and regulation during emergency situations) Act 2016 s. 9 Requirement of attendance and examination by the Police
and 6 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused, even if properly conducted and documented through recovery memo with attesting witnesses, cannot sustain conviction without substantive evidence proving the essential ingredients of 'demand' by the public servant and 'voluntary acceptance' by him of such gratification as motive or reward for doing an official act. When the eyewitnesses to the demand and acceptance (shadow witnesses) turn hostile and deny or substantially recant their police statements despite confrontation, and no corroborating evidence from independent witnesses to the actual transaction exists, the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal on the technical ground of hostile witnesses, even if the recovery itself is valid and unimpeached.
On this section: Criminalizes a public servant voluntarily receiving gratification other than legal remuneration. The Court emphasized that both 'demand' and 'voluntary acceptance' are essential ingredients that must be independently established through credible evidence.
-
Shiv Nandan Dixit vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy, cognizance can be taken without written consent under section 196(2) CrPC if the underlying conspiracy involves offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, regardless of whether the court exercises discretion to award lesser punishment. Further, under Prevention of Corruption Act sections 4 and 5(1)(d), the presumption of guilt applies even when bribe is received indirectly, and 'obtains for himself' includes both direct and indirect receipt. A public servant returning a government document held in official custody pursuant to an official order is performing an official act, hence demanding bribe for such return constitutes offense under section 161 IPC. An accomplice can be convicted for criminal conspiracy to demand and receive bribe if presence when demand was made and knowledge of bribe nature are established through circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Punishment for public servant taking gratification for official act; Court interpreted 'official act' broadly to include returning government document pursuant to official order; maximum punishment three years rigorous imprisonment or simple imprisonment with fine
-
Suleman Tayyab vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The true test for applicability of Section 196(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is whether the conspiracy alleged is punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, irrespective of the Court's discretion to award lesser sentence. The words 'obtains for himself' in Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 include both direct and indirect receipt of bribe or pecuniary advantage. When a public servant demands and receives bribe for performing any act in official capacity pursuant to an official order, the act falls within 'official act' under Section 161 IPC, and demanding bribe for such official act constitutes an offence. An intermediary employee can be held guilty of conspiracy and receiving bribe if there is evidence that the employee had knowledge of the corrupt transaction and received the money knowingly on behalf of the principal accused. In sentencing for corruption offences, courts may consider prolonged litigation, loss of employment and benefits, and age of the offender as mitigating factors, provided the conviction is not on doubtful evidence.
On this section: Punishment for public servant receiving gratification other than legal remuneration for official acts. Court held that receiving bribe for returning an official document pursuant to ITO's order constitutes offence under this section as the act of return was an official act. Maximum punishment was three years imprisonment or fine or both.
-
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 6-A Of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Which Requires Prior Approval Of The Central Government For Conducting Inquiry Or Investigation Into Offences Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 Against Central Government Employees Of Joint Secretary Level And Above, Is Invalid And Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution Because: (1) It Creates An Impermissible Classification Based Solely On Status Or Position Of Public Servant; (2) This Classification Has No Rational Nexus To The Legitimate Object Of Preventing Corruption As Enacted In The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988; (3) Every Public Servant Against Whom There Are Allegations Of Corruption Must Be Treated Equally And Similarly Under Law Regardless Of Their Position; (4) The Provision Violates The Rule Of Law, Which Is A Facet Of Article 14, By Preventing Independent, Unhampered Investigation Into Corruption; (5) The Objective Of Protecting High Officials From Harassment Is Itself A Discriminatory Objective That Cannot Justify Different Treatment For Corruption Investigations; (6) Corruption Is An Enemy Of The Nation And Corrupt Public Servants, However High Their Position, Must Be Tracked Down And Punished Equally; And (7) The Very Group Of High-Ranking Bureaucrats Whose Misconduct Requires Investigation Would Decide Whether Investigation Should Commence, Placing Them In Conflict Of Interest.
On this section: Provisions Relating To Public Servant Offences Incorporated Into Prevention Of Corruption Act By Amendment.
-
State of Uttarakhand vs Yogendra Nath Arora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The authority competent to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for a public servant accused of corruption is the authority competent to remove the public servant from service, not merely from a particular office. In the case of a deputed employee, where the power to repatriate is distinct from the power to remove from service, only the authority possessing the power to remove from service (typically the parent organization) is competent to grant prosecution sanction, even if the corrupt act was committed while performing duties for the deputing organization. Repatriation constitutes a change of posting or transfer, not removal from office within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c).
On this section: Taking illegal gratification by public servant; cited as foundational corruption offence
-
Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR and charge sheet under Section 498A IPC can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498A. Specifically, mere cessation of financial support, lack of affection, marital estrangement, or disputes arising from the use of dowry money do not constitute 'cruelty' under Section 498A unless accompanied by: (i) conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health (Explanation a), or (ii) harassment with a view to coercing unlawful demands for property or on account of failure to meet such demands (Explanation b). The absence of either ingredient renders the prosecution fundamentally baseless and subject to quashing.
On this section: Referenced in citation of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for comparative analysis on when criminal prosecution can be quashed.
-
Ramrao Limbaji Garud vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a High Court, on appeal against acquittal, properly conducts a de novo review of evidence in a case where the trial court failed to adequately analyze the evidence, and reaches a reasoned conviction, the Supreme Court should not interfere with such conviction. However, in cases involving extreme litigation delays spanning 25 years or more, the appellate court's sentencing discretion may be exercised to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, giving effect to the principle that justice delayed is justice denied and balancing the gravity of the offence against the inordinate passage of time.
On this section: Applied for criminal breach of trust or dishonest abuse of official position by a government employee. The court upheld the conviction under this section as the High Court had properly analyzed the evidence demonstrating the appellant's misconduct.
-
The State of Maharshtra vs Janardan Piloba Anpat& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere recovery of money from the possession of a public servant, divorced from reliable substantive evidence establishing demand and acceptance of gratification as a motive or reward for an official act, is insufficient to establish an offence under Section 161 IPC or Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) the public servant demanded gratification, (2) the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for rendering or attempting to render an official act, and (3) the circumstances establish the corrupt nexus. When the substantive evidence regarding demand and acceptance is unreliable, contradictory, or creates reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted, and an appellate court should not interfere with such acquittal unless it is perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence.
On this section: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. The court analyzed that the requisite ingredients are: (1) the public servant should accept gratification for himself, and (2) the gratification should be as a motive or reward for rendering or attempting to render any service. Mere acceptance of money does not constitute an offence unless these ingredients are satisfied.
-
Nishikant Bhaskarrao Kulkarni Since Deceased through Legal Heirs vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand for illegal gratification by the accused is a sine qua non (essential prerequisite) for constituting an offense. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt with corroboration in material particulars. Recovery of tainted currency alone is insufficient for conviction. Additionally, the sanction to prosecute a public servant must be granted by the sanctioning authority with proper application of independent mind after considering all relevant facts and evidence; a sanction granted mechanically based on administrative resolutions or without independent consideration is invalid and vitiates the entire prosecution.
On this section: Charging public servant with criminal misconduct. The court examined whether the elements of this offense were established.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… life certificate he demanded illegal gratification and though it was held by this Court that even if it is not part of the discharge of the official duties, an offence under Section 161 IPC (as then it was) was committed. According to the learned standing counsel, Section 7 of the PC Act is almost a reproduction of Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. But it is pertinent to note that the accused therein was also competent to issue certificate for which gratification was accepted. 17. The learned standing counsel also had canvassed my attention to the decision reported in V.K. Kannan v. State (AIR 2010 SC 166) and submitted that in a …
-
… said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty – (a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860); or (b) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have …
Questions about Section 161
What have the courts held on Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code?
Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana (05 Apr 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Criminalizes a public servant voluntarily receiving gratification other than legal remuneration. The Court emphasized that both 'demand' and 'voluntary acceptance' are essential ingredients that must be independently established through credible evidence. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 161, section 161 IPC, section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana (05 Apr 2010).
What should I read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
18 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 161, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.