The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply subject to certain modifications
Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply subject to certain modifications. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall in their application to any proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act have effect as if,-- (a) in sub-section (1) of section 243, for the words "The accused shall then be called upon", the words "The accus The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall in their application to any proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act have effect as if,--
(a) in sub-section (1) of section 243, for the words "The accused shall then be called upon", the words "The accused shall then be required to give in writing at once or within such time as the Court may allow, a list of the persons (if any) whom he proposes to examine as his witnesses and of the documents (if any) on which he proposes to rely and he shall then be called upon" had been substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2) of section 309, after the third proviso, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:--
"Provided also that the proceeding shall not be adjourned or postponed merely on the ground that an application under section 397 has been made by a party to the proceeding.";
(c) after sub-section (2) of section 317, the following sub-section had been inserted, namely:--
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination.";
(d) in sub-section (1) of section 397, before the Explanation, the following proviso had been inserted, namely :--
"Provided that where the powers under this section are exercised by a Court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the Court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings:--
(a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for; or
(b) if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies.".
Section 22, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988).
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.
-
Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences are committed in one series of acts forming the same criminal transaction, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has the express authority under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to take cognizance of and try offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as Sections 420 and 120-B) against an accused, notwithstanding that the same offences would ordinarily be triable by a Magistrate, provided that co-accused in the same transaction are charged with offences specified in Section 3 of the PC Act. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits such consolidated trial of co-accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction, and the splitting of such trials would be incongruous and impractical. The High Court's Administrative Order and the State's Notification appointing a Special Judge for the 2G Spectrum cases were constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Articles 233-234 and Section 194 of the CrPC respectively, and cannot be collaterally assailed as they were premised on the Supreme Court's valid directions under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution.
On this section: Provides that CrPC provisions apply to proceedings under the PC Act subject to certain modifications, establishing the applicability of procedural criminal law to PC Act trials.
-
Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where co-accused in the same criminal transaction are charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as offences under the Indian Penal Code, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has valid jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act read with Section 220 and Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to take cognizance of and try all accused jointly, including those charged solely with IPC offences. The Administrative Order of the High Court nominating a Special Judge and the Government Notification appointing such Special Judge are constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Article 233 of the Constitution and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The establishment of a Special Court to exclusively try cases arising from the same FIR and the same criminal transaction does not violate the Criminal Procedure Code or deprive the accused of valuable legal rights.
On this section: Provides that provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply to proceedings under the PC Act subject to certain modifications. Court cited this to show applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions to trials under PC Act.
-
Vikash Saraf vs Registrar General Delhi H. Ct.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused are charged in the same transaction with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of that Act has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) to try other co-accused charged only with Indian Penal Code offences (Sections 120-B and 420 IPC) relating to the same transaction. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits consolidated trial of multiple accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction. An Administrative Order passed by the High Court and a Notification issued by the State Government appointing a Special Judge to try all cases arising from the 2G Spectrum scam, including IPC offences, is constitutionally and legally valid as it falls within the statutory framework of the PC Act and Criminal Procedure Code and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution merely by affecting appeal rights when there is no threat to fair trial. Supreme Court orders directing establishment of a Special Court passed under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution are binding and cannot be indirectly assailed through collateral challenges to the Special Court's jurisdiction.
On this section: Provides that Criminal Procedure Code provisions apply to proceedings for PC Act offences subject to certain modifications, establishing the interplay between PC Act and Criminal Procedure Code.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The requirement of documents for the purpose of investigation is to be examined and decided by the Investigating Officer, and any direction to interfere in the same is not justified. The Investigating Officer has the unfettered discretion to retain documents during the pendency of investigation, and the court cannot examine the relevancy of seized documents at the initial stage of investigation or direct their return based on claims of government functioning disruption. The scope of investigation cannot be curtailed by the scope of search warrant application, and item 10 of the search warrant annexure allowing seizure of 'any other documents relevant to the case' permits the Investigating Officer to seize documents beyond those specifically listed.
On this section: Application of CrPC provisions to Prevention of Corruption Act cases
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.
Questions about Section 22
What have the courts held on Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides that CrPC provisions apply to proceedings under the PC Act subject to certain modifications, establishing the applicability of procedural criminal law to PC Act trials. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 22 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 22, section 22 PC Act, section 22 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. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013).
When did Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 22, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.