Power to try summarily
Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with power to try summarily. Where a special Judge tries any offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3, alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the contravention of any special order referred to in sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) or of an order The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
(1) Where a special Judge tries any offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3, alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the contravention of any special order referred to in sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) or of an order referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of that section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 5 of this Act or section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the special Judge shall try the offence in a summary way, and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial:
Provided that, in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special Judge to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year:
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the special Judge that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the special Judge shall, after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to hear or re-hear the case in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the said Code for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily under this section in which the special Judge passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month, and of fine not exceeding two thousand rupees whether or not any order under section 452 of the said Code is made in addition to such sentence, but an appeal shall lie where any sentence in excess of the aforesaid limits is passed by the special Judge.
Section 6, 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.
-
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant holds multiple offices and is accused of abuse of one office, sanction for prosecution is mandatory only from the authority competent to remove him from that specific office which he is alleged to have misused. If the public servant has relinquished the office allegedly abused before charge sheet is filed, no sanction is required at all, despite his continuing to hold other public offices. The requirement of sanction serves to prevent frivolous prosecutions of the specific office abused; once that office is relinquished, the protection becomes inapplicable. To require sanction from authorities controlling other unrelated offices held simultaneously would pervert the legislative intent and convert the sanction requirement into a rogue's charter enabling evasion of prosecution.
On this section: Central issue; Court analyzed when sanction is mandatory for public servants holding multiple offices, concluding sanction requirement applies only to office actually misused and becomes unnecessary if that office is relinquished
-
Nishikant Bhaskarrao Kulkarni Since Deceased through Legal Heirs vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand for illegal gratification by the accused is a sine qua non (essential prerequisite) for constituting an offense. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt with corroboration in material particulars. Recovery of tainted currency alone is insufficient for conviction. Additionally, the sanction to prosecute a public servant must be granted by the sanctioning authority with proper application of independent mind after considering all relevant facts and evidence; a sanction granted mechanically based on administrative resolutions or without independent consideration is invalid and vitiates the entire prosecution.
On this section: Requirement for sanction to prosecute public servants. The court held that sanction must be granted with proper application of mind and cannot be a mechanical formality based on administrative resolutions.
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 6
What have the courts held on Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against (17 Sep 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Central issue; Court analyzed when sanction is mandatory for public servants holding multiple offices, concluding sanction requirement applies only to office actually misused and becomes unnecessary if that office is relinquished. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 6 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 6, section 6 PC Act, section 6 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. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against (17 Sep 2013).
What should I read with Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Power to appoint special Judges), section 5 (Procedure and powers of special Judge), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 6, 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
- 5. Procedure and powers of special Judge368 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 19 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.