Persons authorised to investigate
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with persons authorised to investigate. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,-- (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police; The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,--
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank,
shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided further that an offence referred to in 1[clause (b) of sub-section (1)] of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
Section 17, 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.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A notification issued under Section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 appointing a Special Judge for a specified area to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 shall be deemed to be a valid appointment of a Special Judge under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for that area, and such appointment extends to all cases under the 1988 Act, not merely to cases pending at the time of commencement of the 1988 Act. The deeming fiction created by Section 26 read with Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act operates to validate old appointments for new cases without requiring fresh notifications.
On this section: Authorization of investigating officers; Court noted that the contention regarding investigating officer's status was not seriously raised and did not require detailed consideration
-
State of Punjab vs Harnek Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a penal statute is repealed and re-enacted with similar or expanded provisions dealing with the same subject matter, and the saving provision in the re-enacting statute refers to the General Clauses Act, Section 24 of the General Clauses Act (which applies to repealed and re-enacted Acts) continues to apply unless explicitly excluded. Accordingly, notifications, orders, and administrative authorizations issued under the repealed statute continue in force under the re-enacted statute if not inconsistent with its provisions, and such notifications are deemed to have been issued under the re-enacted statute unless formally superseded or withdrawn. This applies through the legal fiction created by the saving clause that the new Act was in force when the old actions were taken.
On this section: Specifies persons authorized to investigate offences under the new Act without magistrate's order. Court held that Section 17 with its proviso allowing State Government authorization by general or special order, corresponds with Section 5A of 1947 Act.
-
State of Gujarat vs K V Joseph
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court cannot issue detailed administrative directions to government agencies regarding prosecution procedures, declare statutory rules ultra vires without proper notice and hearing to affected parties, or threaten contempt proceedings against administrative authorities for procedural delays. The proper remedy for concerns about arbitrary withdrawal of prosecutions or procedural irregularities is referral to appropriate administrative institutions such as the Central Vigilance Commission, not judicial usurpation of administrative functions. Judicial pronouncements must adhere to principles of restraint, temperate language, natural justice, and procedural propriety.
On this section: Cited to challenge the validity of Paragraph 4 of the Vigilance Manual, which was alleged to be in direct conflict with statutory provisions
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.
-
… The decision of a two judge Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed <sup>25</sup> dealt with the validity of a confession which was recorded under the This is necessary in view of the drastic provisions of this Act. More so when the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 17 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 under Section 13, authorise only a police officer of a specified rank to investigate the offences under those specified Acts. ( 5 ) The police officer if he is seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pre-trial interrogation from the judicial custody, …
-
… The decision of a two judge Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed <sup>25</sup> dealt with the validity of a confession which was recorded under the This is necessary in view of the drastic provisions of this Act. More so when the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 17 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 under Section 13, authorise only a police officer of a specified rank to investigate the offences under those specified Acts. ( 5 ) The police officer if he is seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pre-trial interrogation from the judicial custody, …
-
… The decision of a two judge Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed <sup>25</sup> dealt with the validity of a confession which was recorded under the This is necessary in view of the drastic provisions of this Act. More so when the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 17 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 under Section 13, authorise only a police officer of a specified rank to investigate the offences under those specified Acts. ( 5 ) The police officer if he is seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pre-trial interrogation from the judicial custody, …
Questions about Section 17
What have the courts held on Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak vs State of Karnataka (12 Nov 2002) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Authorization of investigating officers; Court noted that the contention regarding investigating officer's status was not seriously raised and did not require detailed consideration. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2002.
How do I find court cases under Section 17 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 17, section 17 PC Act, section 17 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. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak vs State of Karnataka (12 Nov 2002).
What should I read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 13 (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 17, 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.