Cases triable by special Judges
Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with cases triable by special Judges. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only. The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only.
(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.
(3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
1[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the trial of an offence shall be held, as far as practicable, on day-to-day basis and an endeavour shall be made to ensure that the said trial is concluded within a period of two years:
Provided that where the trial is not concluded within the said period, the special Judge shall record the reasons for not having done so:
Provided further that the said period may be extended by such further period, for reasons to be recorded in writing but not exceeding six months at a time; so, however, that the said period together with such extended period shall not exceed ordinarily four years in aggregate.]
Section 4, 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
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: Section 4(1) mandates that offences under Section 3 shall be tried by Special Judges only. Section 4(3) critically provides that Special Judge may also try any other offence with which accused may be charged at the same trial under CrPC. This provision was central to the court's holding that Special Judge could take cognizance of IPC offences.
-
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: Mandates that offences specified in Section 3 shall be tried by Special Judges only. Court applied this to establish that all PC Act offences in 2G Scam case must be tried by the Special Judge.
-
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: Mandates that offences specified in Section 3(1) shall be tried by Special Judges only. Applied to establish that PC Act offences must be tried exclusively by Special Judges.
-
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: Presumption when public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. The court noted that this presumption can only be invoked when it is first proved that the accused has accepted or obtained or agreed to accept gratification. The presumption cannot be invoked in the absence of proof of demand.
-
Mahesh Maheshwari vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act involves receipt of illegal gratification and the receipt occurs in a different jurisdiction from where the money originated, the jurisdiction for trial is determined by the place where the receipt and related substantive transactions occurred, not merely the place of origin of funds. Under CrPC Section 179, when an act is an offence by reason of both something done and a consequence ensued, the offence may be tried by a court within whose jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued. In cases involving criminal conspiracy spanning multiple jurisdictions with substantive offences occurring in multiple places, each set of offences may constitute main offences, and the court having jurisdiction over any of such places may try the case. At the charge framing stage, the court need only determine whether a prima facie case has been made out based on materials on record; detailed appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial stage.
On this section: Offences under PC Act have to be tried by Special Judge for the area within which the offence was committed; court interpreted 'area' to include place of receipt of illegal gratification
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 4
What have the courts held on Section 4 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: Section 4(1) mandates that offences under Section 3 shall be tried by Special Judges only. Section 4(3) critically provides that Special Judge may also try any other offence with which accused may be charged at the same trial under CrPC. This provision was central to the court's holding that Special Judge could take cognizance of IPC offences. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 4 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 4, section 4 PC Act, section 4 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. 5 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 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Power to appoint special Judges), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 4, 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.