Criminal misconduct by a public servant
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-- (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
1[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
Explanation 1.--A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2.--The expression ''known sources of income'' means income received from any lawful sources.]
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 2[four years] but which may extend to 3[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 13, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 6
- s. 15 Punishment for attempt
- s. 16 Matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine
- s. 17 Persons authorised to investigate
- s. 19 Previous sanction necessary for prosecution
- s. 23 Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under section 13 (1) (a)
- s. 29 Amendment of the Ordinance 38 of 1944
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.
-
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Constitution Bench on proof of demand in PC Act cases: demand is sine qua non, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable; the 1988 Act ss.7/13 still require proof of demand and acceptance.
On this section: Criminal misconduct (s.13) likewise needs proof of demand, not a bare recovery.
-
P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/ Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A non-public servant, including a spouse, can be convicted for abetting an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by actively assisting a public servant in concealing illegally acquired disproportionate assets, including by allowing such assets to be registered in the abettor's name. The change in marital status of the abettor is immaterial if, at the time of commission of the offence, the abettor was married to the public servant and actively participated in concealing the illegal wealth.
On this section: Defines the offence of acquiring disproportionate assets by a public servant. Applied to establish that the appellant's husband committed this offence and that the appellant abetted it.
-
Baliram vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A public servant can be convicted under both Section 7 (acceptance of illegal gratification) and Section 13(1)(d) (obtaining illegal gratification in pursuance of demand) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the same transaction of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, but the offender shall not be punished with a punishment more severe than the court could award for any one of such offences. When the same transaction falls under multiple sections with different punishments, the minimum punishment of the highest minimum prescribed (here, one year under Section 13(1)(d)) shall apply in accordance with Section 71 IPC. Demand for bribe is sufficiently established through credible witness testimony combined with objective evidence like anthracene powder detection on the accused's hands and recovered currency notes when trap procedure is properly conducted with independent panch witnesses.
On this section: Addresses public servant obtaining for himself illegal gratification otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (2). Applies when acceptance is in pursuance of demand. Court held offence falls under this section when demand is established.
-
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, particularly where charges rest on circumstantial evidence and expert opinion (such as forensic handwriting analysis), the court must distinguish between proof beyond reasonable doubt and mere suspicion or probability. While hospital records showing interpolations and missing pages may indicate tampering, and while one individual's (Dr. Ravinder Kaur's) direct involvement in issuing false admission slips may be established through credible witness testimony, the involvement of other staff members in a conspiracy to forge records cannot be inferred from handwriting matches alone without clinching evidence of their guilty mind and knowledge of the conspiracy. The standard of proof required in criminal law is significantly higher than establishing suspicion; each accused must be judged on individual evidence establishing their participation in the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Further, charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requiring abuse of official position for illegal gratification cannot be sustained without explicit evidence of demand and acceptance of such gratification.
On this section: Abuse of official position by public servant - Court found this charge could not be sustained without evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification/pecuniary advantage, which was absent.
-
Jasbir Kaur vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not merely a preponderance of probabilities. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be based on handwriting expert evidence alone without clinching corroborating evidence of guilty mind and direct participation in the criminal act. A public servant's conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of taking or obtaining pecuniary advantage or illicit benefit, which cannot be presumed without explicit evidence. Direct evidence of participation and guilty mind is essential to convict co-accused in conspiracy cases, especially where circumstantial evidence does not establish their individual culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Applied for corrupt conduct by public servant - conviction NOT sustained due to lack of evidence of pecuniary advantage or illicit benefit
-
M. R. Purshotham vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from an accused public servant, without independent proof of prior demand for illegal gratification by the accused, is insufficient to establish an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The element of demand is essential and must be specifically proved through credible evidence; the testimony of a panch witness regarding acceptance of money, when the complainant himself disowns any demand, cannot substitute for the missing proof of demand.
On this section: Offence of public servant obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position. Court held that demand is essential element; mere possession of tainted money insufficient without proof of demand.
-
Balwinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal prosecution, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard, not mere suspicion or preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt only when the circumstances are of clinching nature and directly point to guilt. Handwriting expert analysis has corroborative value but cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Each accused must have their individual culpability established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion arising from involvement in conspiracy does not warrant conviction. For conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pecuniary advantage is an essential ingredient and must be established. Inquiry reports containing hearsay evidence are not sufficient for conviction unless the persons whose version formed the basis of the inquiry are examined and cross-examined.
On this section: Misconduct by public servant while acting in official capacity; Court held that pecuniary advantage is essential ingredient not satisfied in this case
-
Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director LTD vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department S. H. O
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. A police officer does not have the power to attach, seize, and seal an immovable property under Section 102 of the Code. The word 'seize' in Section 102 means actual taking of possession which cannot be done with immovable property without dispossessing the occupant, which power is not conferred by Section 102. Immovable property disputes must be adjudicated by Civil Courts or through specialized statutory procedures like the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 or Chapter VIIA of the Code. However, police may seize documents or papers of title relating to immovable property as this is distinct from seizure of the immovable property itself.
On this section: Cited to show that Legislature has provided specific provisions for dealing with property obtained through corruption, and courts must consider property value when imposing fines, showing Legislature's intent regarding property in criminal cases.
-
Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Resolution Plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(2) of the IBC, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan stand frozen and binding on all stakeholders. Claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan or the RfRP stand extinguished, and no person can initiate proceedings for such claims. The Committee of Creditors does not become functus officio after plan approval but continues to exist until full implementation or finality of appeals, with authority to monitor and supervise implementation through a monitoring committee. The commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving a Resolution Plan is paramount and non-justiciable, and courts cannot interfere with the CoC's business decisions unless the plan violates mandatory statutory provisions or is based on extraneous considerations or is ex facie arbitrary and illegal. Delay in implementation of an approved Resolution Plan does not justify setting aside the plan unless the delay is unjustified and attributable to the SRA. Compulsorily convertible debentures are treated as equity instruments as they involve mandatory conversion without repayment obligation. EBITDA generated during CIRP cannot be claimed by creditors unless specifically provided for in the RfRP or Resolution Plan. Erstwhile promoters and directors, as personal guarantors vitally interested in the Resolution Plan's outcome, have locus standi to appeal under Sections 61 and 62 of the IBC, but their appeals must be decided on merits considering their conduct during CIRP.
On this section: Criminal charges against BPSL management for alleged corruption and criminal misconduct
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Applies to public servants who obtain pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means; Court held that conviction under this section cannot be sustained once conviction under Sections 409 and 420 IPC is reversed
-
Pankaj Jain vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The word 'may' in Section 88 Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power on the court and does not create a mandatory obligation or a corresponding right in any person appearing before the court. The discretion is for the court to exercise judicially based on the nature of the case, seriousness of charges, and status of the person (whether a free agent or already under warrant/arrest). Section 88 applies only to persons who are free agents - meaning they have not been arrested, are not under custody, and a non-bailable warrant has not been issued against them. When a non-bailable warrant has been issued and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against an accused, that person ceases to be a free agent and cannot claim protection under Section 88. The discretion under Section 88 is not coupled with any duty toward the appearing person; rather, it is coupled with the duty to ensure appearance of the person in court. Therefore, an accused person's non-arrest during investigation does not automatically entitle them to release on bond merely by appearing in court; they must follow the prescribed bail procedures applicable to their specific category of offence.
On this section: Corruption charges - core allegations in FIR against appellant and others
-
State of Rajasthan vs Kishan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a High Court is reviewing an order framing charges in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it must not substitute its own opinion regarding the sufficiency of evidence or undertake a meticulous examination of evidence to determine conviction. The court must limit itself to examining whether the allegations, taken as a whole and without detailed scrutiny, prima facie establish the ingredients of an offence. Quashing of charges is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases where allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable, or where basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied. Once allegations are made in the chargesheet which, on their face, establish a prima facie case of the offence charged, the High Court should be disinclined to interfere. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to decide questions of fact or credibility or to marshal evidence to determine guilt or innocence.
On this section: Defines criminal misconduct by a public servant as obtaining for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. Court applied this to analyze whether Mehdu's actions in granting quarry rights over an inflated area constituted obtaining valuable benefit through corrupt means for Rawat.
-
State of M. P. vs Anand Mohan & ANR
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When power to grant sanction for prosecution of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been delegated to the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs through a statutory rule amendment published in the Official Gazette, the Administrative or Departmental authority from which the public servant is removable cannot retain or exercise concurrent power to decline such sanction. The statutory rule amendment prevails over any conflicting executive instruction or circular, and a later clarificatory circular merely explains the scope of already-delegated authority rather than conferring new power. The competence of the sanctioning authority is determined by the legal delegation of power, not by the temporal proximity of the power-delegation to the alleged commission of the offence.
On this section: Offences for which sanction was sought. The respondents were accused of offences under these sections, necessitating sanction under Section 19.
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision petition is interconnected with another petition and an order has been passed in the connected petition on the same date, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all grounds before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, allowing the trial court to consider all arguments in the context of the interconnected cases.
On this section: Criminal misconduct by public servant - charge against petitioners
-
Shashi Kumar Unnikrishnan vs Republic of India(c.b.i.)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court allows the prosecution to place on record documents that were inadvertently omitted from the charge sheet, the prosecution is obligated to supply all such documents to the accused in accordance with Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused retains the right to file a discharge application after receiving the documents, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The court will not interfere with the trial court's discretionary order allowing the admission of omitted documents if the omission was inadvertent and not malafide, and if adequate procedural safeguards are in place to protect the accused's rights.
On this section: Charge against the accused for criminal misconduct by public servant
-
D. Velayutham vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In Anti-Corruption Prosecutions Involving Trap Cases Where Co-Accused Are Jointly Charged And One Successfully Avoids Direct Entrapment While The Other Is Caught Red-Handed, The Accused Who Evaded The Trap Can Still Be Convicted Through A Combination Of Accomplice Testimony (With Proper Corroboration), Circumstantial Evidence, And The Doctrine Of Constructive Receipt Of Bribes. The Absence Of An Accused From The Physical Location Of Bribe-Taking Does Not Shield Him From Conviction If The Totality Of Evidence Demonstrates His Role As The Mastermind And Beneficiary Of The Illegal Gratification. Courts Are Not To Presume That Trap/Decoy Witnesses Are Inherently Interested Or Partisan; Rather, The Burden Lies On The Defence To Establish Motive And Interest Through Specific Evidence. The Corroboration Of Accomplice Evidence Is A Matter Of Prudential Discretion Varying With Case Facts, Not An Absolute Legal Requirement.
On this section: Applied For Possession Of Disproportionate Assets And Related Offences; Initially Charged But Conviction Set Aside For Accused 1 By High Court Under Section 13(1)(d) Read With 13(2)
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.
-
… of going through the Judgment authored by my learned brother Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. where the Accused Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.05.07 19:32:05 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified No.2 (P. Nallammal) has been acquitted for the offence under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). Though I agree with some of the observations made by my brother Judge, yet I am unable to accept the conclusion and findings of acquittal as regards Accused No.2, who was the wife of the public servant Accused No.1. Consequently, I …
-
… Moreover, it is alleged that while in custody at Palora Jail as an undertrial, he obtained a SIM card, though it is unclear whether this constitutes an offence under the PMLA. - D.Finally, from 4th January 2013 onward, the PMLA was amended to include Sections 420 and 467 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Part A of its schedule, thereby removing any minimum monetary threshold. However, there are no allegations against the accused for actions taken during this period. - 18.6 The primary submission made in light of the above timeline is that the allegations primarily pertain to …
-
… Jayalalitha (supra) have clearly concluded the issue against the appellants. - 29. This Court, in Selvi J. Jayalalitha (supra) , was concerned with an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a case of disproportionate assets under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused persons therein had sought to place reliance on income tax returns and income tax assessment orders. In that context the Court had concluded that income tax returns and orders are not by themselves conclusive proof that they are lawful sources of income under …
Questions about Section 13
What have the courts held on Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (15 Dec 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Criminal misconduct (s.13) likewise needs proof of demand, not a bare recovery. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
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: PC Act 13, section 13 PC Act, section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (15 Dec 2022).
What should I read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, commonly called disproportionate assets, and cited as PC Act 13, came into force on 09 Sep 1988, having been enacted on 09 Sep 1988. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties1666 words
- 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution869 words
- 2. Definitions716 words
- 9. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation532 words
- 6. Power to try summarily374 words
- 5. Procedure and powers of special Judge368 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. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.