Procedure and powers of special Judge
Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with procedure and powers of special Judge. A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
(1) A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) A special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed to have been tendered under section 307 of that Code.
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge; and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Court of the special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a special Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor.
(4) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (3), the provisions of sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions, a special Judge shall be deemed to be a Magistrate.
(5) A special Judge may pass upon any person convicted by him any sentence authorised by law for the punishment of the offence of which such person is convicted.
(6) A special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under this Act, shall exercise all the powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord. 38 of 1944).
Section 5, 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.
-
Mota Ram vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Public Servant Solicits Money From A Citizen By Falsely Promising To Use His Official Position To Secure A Benefit (Such As Government Employment), The Money So Obtained Constitutes Illegal Gratification Punishable Under Section 5(2) Of The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1947, Even If The Money Is Subsequently Repaid. The Subsequent Repayment And The Manner Of Obtaining A Receipt For Only A Portion Of The Money In The Presence Of Witnesses, Rather Than Strengthening The Claim That It Was A Loan, Serves As Circumstantial Evidence Of Consciousness Of Guilt And An Attempt To Create False Documentary Evidence. Mitigating Circumstances Such As The Age Of The Case, Partial Imprisonment Already Undergone, And Repayment Of The Amount Do Not Justify Reducing The Minimum Mandatory Sentence Prescribed Under The Statute.
On this section: Conviction For Public Servant Soliciting Or Accepting Illegal Gratification. The Court Confirmed Minimum Sentence Of One Year Rigorous Imprisonment Extendable Up To 7 Years Under This Section. The Court Held That Grounds Like Old Age Of Case, Partial Imprisonment Served, And Repayment Cannot Constitute Mitigating Circumstances For Sentence Reduction Under The Statutory Provision.
-
Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR and charge sheet under Section 498A IPC can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498A. Specifically, mere cessation of financial support, lack of affection, marital estrangement, or disputes arising from the use of dowry money do not constitute 'cruelty' under Section 498A unless accompanied by: (i) conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health (Explanation a), or (ii) harassment with a view to coercing unlawful demands for property or on account of failure to meet such demands (Explanation b). The absence of either ingredient renders the prosecution fundamentally baseless and subject to quashing.
On this section: Referenced in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case citation for comparative jurisprudence on quashing proceedings.
-
Ramrao Limbaji Garud vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a High Court, on appeal against acquittal, properly conducts a de novo review of evidence in a case where the trial court failed to adequately analyze the evidence, and reaches a reasoned conviction, the Supreme Court should not interfere with such conviction. However, in cases involving extreme litigation delays spanning 25 years or more, the appellate court's sentencing discretion may be exercised to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, giving effect to the principle that justice delayed is justice denied and balancing the gravity of the offence against the inordinate passage of time.
On this section: Applied for public servant being party to criminal misconduct by receiving illegal gratification. The High Court's conviction under this section was upheld with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and one month rigorous imprisonment in default.
-
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: Criminal misconduct by public servant. The court analyzed that a public servant commits criminal misconduct if by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position he obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
-
Ashok Seghal vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate First Class has concurrent jurisdiction with the Special Judge to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. in cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The power to grant pardon is not exclusively vested in the Special Judge. When a Magistrate tenders pardon bonafide, even if erroneously without explicit jurisdiction, the proceedings are protected by Section 460(g) Cr.P.C. and cannot be set aside merely on the ground of lack of empowerment. The deeming clause in Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has limited purpose only for sub-sections 1 to 5 of Section 308 Cr.P.C. and does not exclude the Magistrate's concurrent power under Section 306 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Court held that Section 5(2) grants the Special Judge power to tender pardon, but this does not deprive the Magistrate of concurrent power under Section 306 Cr.P.C. The deeming clause in Section 5(2) has limited purpose only for sub-sections 1 to 5 of Section 308 Cr.P.C.
-
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: CrPC applies to court of Special Judge constituted under PC Act; therefore CrPC provisions on jurisdiction are applicable
-
N.d. Ashwani vs Union of India& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court, after examining evidence on record, finds legally admissible evidence indicating the complicity of a person in the commission of an offence, the trial court has the discretion to summon that person as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the High Court will not interfere with such discretionary order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. unless the order suffers from illegality or infirmity. The mere fact that the investigating agency did not charge-sheet a person does not preclude the trial court from summoning that person if evidence during trial indicates complicity.
On this section: Corruption charges against public servants for criminal misconduct
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 5
What have the courts held on Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Mota Ram vs State of Haryana (28 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Conviction For Public Servant Soliciting Or Accepting Illegal Gratification. The Court Confirmed Minimum Sentence Of One Year Rigorous Imprisonment Extendable Up To 7 Years Under This Section. The Court Held That Grounds Like Old Age Of Case, Partial Imprisonment Served, And Repayment Cannot Constitute Mitigating Circumstances For Sentence Reduction Under The Statutory Provision. Another 6 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 5 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 5, section 5 PC Act, section 5 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. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mota Ram vs State of Haryana (28 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 5, 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
- 7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed340 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.