Power to appoint special Judges
Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with power to appoint special Judges. The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely:-- (a) any offence p The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
(1) The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely:--
(a) any offence punishable under this Act; and
(b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a).
(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
Section 3, 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.
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: Defines the power to appoint Special Judges for offences under the Act and conspiracy/abetment thereof. Court held NCT of Delhi was well within jurisdiction to issue notifications appointing Special Judge for 2G Scam cases.
-
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: Empowers the Central Government or State Government to appoint Special Judges by notification for specified areas or cases to try offences under the PC Act. In the present case, the NCT of Delhi exercised this power to designate Mr. O.P. Saini as Special Judge for 2G Scam cases.
-
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: Empowers Central Government or State Government to appoint Special Judges by notification for trying offences punishable under the PC Act and conspiracies/attempts/abetments thereof. Applied to validate the NCT of Delhi's Notification appointing Om Prakash Saini as Special Judge.
-
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: Defines the jurisdiction of Special Judges to try offences under the Act; Court held that appointments under 1952 Act are deemed to be appointments under Section 3 of 1988 Act
-
Nar Bahadur Bhandari vs State of Sikkim
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has competence to try offences committed under the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This competence arises from Section 30(2) of the Act of 1988, which creates a legal fiction deeming anything done or any action taken under the Act of 1947 to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1988. Section 30(2) expresses a different intention within the meaning of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and therefore the Special Court constituted under the Act of 1988 can take cognizance of and try offences under the Act of 1947.
On this section: Section 3 defines the jurisdiction of Special Courts. Section 30(2) is the critical provision that creates a legal fiction deeming actions under the repealed Act to be done under the new Act. The Court held that Section 30(2) must be read together with Section 3 to determine the competence of Special Courts.
-
D.sampath vs Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A private individual can be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting gratification from a public servant to influence another public servant. The status of the bribe-giver (whether public servant or private person) is immaterial under Section 8 PC Act. What is relevant is whether the gratification was received by the accused to induce a public servant to do or forbear to do any official act. A private person can be the sole accused in a Section 8 PC Act case without a public servant being named as co-accused. The word 'person' in Section 8 PC Act includes public servants, as the act of giving bribe is not an official duty and therefore a public servant giving bribe acts as a private person.
On this section: Jurisdiction of Special Judge - cited to establish that offences under PC Act can be tried only by Special Judge regardless of whether accused is public servant or private person
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.
-
… RC-28(A)/2007-DLI/CBI (CHINAR CGHS) pending before Sh. Virender Bhat, learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi PS CBI and the Notification No. F. 6(33)/2009- JUDL./1125-1131 dated 15th September, 2010 issued by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi conferring powers of Special Court under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988') to each and every officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services primarily on the grounds that the impugned notification had not been issued in accordance with Section 3 of the Act, 1988 and the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court was acting …
-
… Virender Bhat, learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi PS CBI and the Notification No. F. 6(33)/2009-JUDL./1125-1131 dated 15th September, 2010 issued by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi conferring powers of Special Court under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act, 1988') to each and every officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services primarily on the grounds that the impugned notification had not been issued in accordance with Section 3 of the Act, 1988 and the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court was acting …
Questions about Section 3
What have the courts held on Section 3 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: Defines the power to appoint Special Judges for offences under the Act and conspiracy/abetment thereof. Court held NCT of Delhi was well within jurisdiction to issue notifications appointing Special Judge for 2G Scam cases. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1998 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 3 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 3, section 3 PC Act, section 3 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. 6 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).
What should I read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 3, 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.