Offence relating to public servant being bribed
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with offence relating to public servant being bribed. Any public servant who,-- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public serva The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
1[7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.-- Any public servant who,--
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.--A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,--
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.
Section 7, 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.
-
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Constitution Bench on proof of demand in PC Act cases: demand is sine qua non, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable; the 1988 Act ss.7/13 still require proof of demand and acceptance.
On this section: Offence of being bribed still requires demand; demand may be inferred from circumstances.
-
Baliram vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A public servant can be convicted under both Section 7 (acceptance of illegal gratification) and Section 13(1)(d) (obtaining illegal gratification in pursuance of demand) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the same transaction of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, but the offender shall not be punished with a punishment more severe than the court could award for any one of such offences. When the same transaction falls under multiple sections with different punishments, the minimum punishment of the highest minimum prescribed (here, one year under Section 13(1)(d)) shall apply in accordance with Section 71 IPC. Demand for bribe is sufficiently established through credible witness testimony combined with objective evidence like anthracene powder detection on the accused's hands and recovered currency notes when trap procedure is properly conducted with independent panch witnesses.
On this section: Addresses acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant, whether or not preceded by demand. Court held that every acceptance of illegal gratification falls under Section 7.
-
Kallappa Mallappa Kamble vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the twin mandatory requirements of demand of illegal gratification and its voluntary acceptance by a public servant, knowing it to be a bribe, are proved by evidence through credible and consistent testimony corroborated by physical evidence, conviction must follow under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The absence of supporting evidence for defence claims such as forced acceptance of money, combined with the established facts that the public servant had authority over the subject matter and the gratification was clearly linked to official action, establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. These twin elements are sine qua non (absolutely essential conditions) for proving the offence of corruption under Section 7 of the Act.
On this section: Section 7 deals with the public servant obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without consideration from any person, knowing that he is obtaining it as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Court held that both demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved to establish conviction under this section.
-
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 6-A Of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Which Requires Prior Approval Of The Central Government For Conducting Inquiry Or Investigation Into Offences Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 Against Central Government Employees Of Joint Secretary Level And Above, Is Invalid And Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution Because: (1) It Creates An Impermissible Classification Based Solely On Status Or Position Of Public Servant; (2) This Classification Has No Rational Nexus To The Legitimate Object Of Preventing Corruption As Enacted In The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988; (3) Every Public Servant Against Whom There Are Allegations Of Corruption Must Be Treated Equally And Similarly Under Law Regardless Of Their Position; (4) The Provision Violates The Rule Of Law, Which Is A Facet Of Article 14, By Preventing Independent, Unhampered Investigation Into Corruption; (5) The Objective Of Protecting High Officials From Harassment Is Itself A Discriminatory Objective That Cannot Justify Different Treatment For Corruption Investigations; (6) Corruption Is An Enemy Of The Nation And Corrupt Public Servants, However High Their Position, Must Be Tracked Down And Punished Equally; And (7) The Very Group Of High-Ranking Bureaucrats Whose Misconduct Requires Investigation Would Decide Whether Investigation Should Commence, Placing Them In Conflict Of Interest.
On this section: Anti-Corruption Legislation Applied To All Public Servants. Court Emphasized That PC Act 1988 Seeks To Combat Corruption With A Strong Hand And Was Enacted To Make Corruption Laws More Effective. Court Found That Section 6-A Defeats The Purpose Of The PC Act By Creating An Exception For Senior Officials.
-
State of Maharashtra vs Ashok
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Court under MCOCA may take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint, but such power is controlled by and must be exercised in compliance with Section 23(2) of MCOCA, which mandates that no Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a Police Officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police. Section 9(1) and Section 23(2) of MCOCA must be read harmoniously and together, not in isolation. The provisions of Section 25 of MCOCA, which give overriding effect to MCOCA over the Criminal Procedure Code, preclude the Special Judge from invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to conduct independent inquiry on a private complaint and take cognizance without compliance with Section 23. Private complaints must follow the procedure outlined in Section 23 of MCOCA: forward to officer under Section 23(1)(a) for inquiry by police officer under Section 23(1)(b), and only thereafter take cognizance upon obtaining sanction under Section 23(2).
On this section: Original bribe trap case offences. Sections cited to establish the background factual context leading to the private complaint under MCOCA.
-
V. Sivankutty vs The State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliamentary privileges and immunities granted under Article 194 of the Constitution are functional in nature, designed to enable elected representatives to perform their legislative duties without hindrance. These privileges do not extend to criminal acts such as destruction of public property, and no elected representative can claim exemption from the application of criminal law. Acts of vandalism and destruction of public property committed within the precincts of the legislature are not protected by parliamentary privilege and can be prosecuted without prior sanction of the Speaker. The withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be evaluated not merely on the basis of good faith but also on whether it subserves the administration of justice and does not cause manifest injustice. In cases involving destruction of public property and breach of public trust by elected representatives, the court must scrutinize the gravity of the offence and its impact on public life before granting consent to withdrawal.
On this section: Section 19 requires sanction for prosecution of public servants. The Court distinguished the specific sanction requirement under this Act from general criminal prosecution requirements
-
D. Velayutham vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In Anti-Corruption Prosecutions Involving Trap Cases Where Co-Accused Are Jointly Charged And One Successfully Avoids Direct Entrapment While The Other Is Caught Red-Handed, The Accused Who Evaded The Trap Can Still Be Convicted Through A Combination Of Accomplice Testimony (With Proper Corroboration), Circumstantial Evidence, And The Doctrine Of Constructive Receipt Of Bribes. The Absence Of An Accused From The Physical Location Of Bribe-Taking Does Not Shield Him From Conviction If The Totality Of Evidence Demonstrates His Role As The Mastermind And Beneficiary Of The Illegal Gratification. Courts Are Not To Presume That Trap/Decoy Witnesses Are Inherently Interested Or Partisan; Rather, The Burden Lies On The Defence To Establish Motive And Interest Through Specific Evidence. The Corroboration Of Accomplice Evidence Is A Matter Of Prudential Discretion Varying With Case Facts, Not An Absolute Legal Requirement.
On this section: Applied For Public Servant Obtaining Gratification For Exercise Or Forbearance Of Official Function; Both Accused Convicted And Sentenced To One Year Imprisonment Each Under This Section
-
State of Uttarakhand vs Yogendra Nath Arora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The authority competent to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for a public servant accused of corruption is the authority competent to remove the public servant from service, not merely from a particular office. In the case of a deputed employee, where the power to repatriate is distinct from the power to remove from service, only the authority possessing the power to remove from service (typically the parent organization) is competent to grant prosecution sanction, even if the corrupt act was committed while performing duties for the deputing organization. Repatriation constitutes a change of posting or transfer, not removal from office within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c).
On this section: Offence of taking illegal gratification by public servant; cited as substantive offence for which prosecution sanction was sought
-
State of Rajasthan vs Rajkumar Agarwal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prevention of corruption cases involving serious allegations, the High Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR merely on the basis of affidavits filed by witnesses during the investigation stage, especially when the affidavits contradict earlier statements given under Section 161 CrPC. When the FIR and material collected by the investigating agency prima facie make out a strong case against the accused disclosing commission of cognizable offense, quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC is not warranted. The extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised with utmost care and caution, sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is clearly of the view that continuance of prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Mere lack of support from the victim or witness does not automatically constitute abuse of process when credible evidence of the alleged offense exists.
On this section: Section 7 relates to public servant demanding or receiving gratification as motive for official act. Section 13(1)(d)(2) relates to public servant being in possession of property disproportionate to known sources of income. In this case, accused was charged under both sections for demanding and receiving illegal gratification (bribe) for performing medical operation.
-
State of Punjab vs Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process are not limited or affected by the statutory provisions of Section 173 of the Code. Therefore, the High Court can direct investigation or re-investigation by an independent agency such as the CBI even after the police have filed a charge sheet under Section 173(2) and the trial court has framed charges, provided that the High Court is satisfied that such direction is necessary in the extraordinary circumstances to secure the ends of justice, provide credibility and confidence in investigation, and prevent the abuse of judicial process. The distinction between 'further investigation' (permissible under Section 173(8) after charge sheet) and 'fresh/re-investigation' (statutorily forbidden) does not apply to the High Court's exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.
On this section: Sections relate to offences by public servants: Section 7 pertains to criminal misconduct by public servant; Section 13(2) pertains to illegal gratification by public servant
-
State Th. Cbi vs Parmeshwaran Subramani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which provides for punishment of abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11, is not listed in Section 19 of the Act. By virtue of this express omission, the legislature's intention is that previous sanction as required under Section 19 is not necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12. Courts cannot, through interpretation, read Section 12 into the ambit of Section 19, as this would amount to rewriting the statute. When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the courts must apply literal interpretation and cannot add words or supply omissions except in cases of clear necessity found within the four corners of the statute itself.
On this section: One of the principal offences for which sanction is required under Section 19
-
Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties is legally maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier complaint, provided the earlier complaint was dismissed not on merits following inquiry under Section 202-203 CrPC, but on account of procedural default by the complainant such as failure to pay process fees. The bar to entertaining a second complaint applies only when the first complaint has been dismissed on merits after a full inquiry by the Magistrate, except in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876), namely: (i) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record; (ii) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint; (iii) where it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false; or (iv) where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. When a complaint is dismissed merely for procedural default and not on merits, a fresh complaint on the same facts is permissible as it is a different action from attempting to recall or review the earlier order of dismissal, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.
On this section: Substantive offences under Prevention of Corruption Act; charges brought against the accused in the second complaint
-
State through S. P. , New Delhi vs Ratan Lal Arora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment and contains no provision for reduction on special reasons, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to grant probation benefits or reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum. This principle applies to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the statutory bar contained in Section 18 of the Probation Act (which refers to the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947) continues to apply to the re-enacted Act by operation of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The statutory object of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be diluted by indirectly reducing the minimum sentence through the application of probation provisions.
On this section: Sections 7 and 13(2) prescribe minimum sentences of six months and one year respectively. Section 28 states that the Act's provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. The Court held that these minimum sentences cannot be circumvented through probation provisions.
-
CBI vs SHUBHAM RAWAT
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail may be granted where the accused has no criminal antecedents, is not required for further police custody, and the trial is likely to be prolonged, provided the offence is not a large-scale economic crime.
On this section: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision petition is interconnected with another petition and an order has been passed in the connected petition on the same date, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all grounds before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, allowing the trial court to consider all arguments in the context of the interconnected cases.
On this section: Public servant taking gratification - charge against petitioners
-
Manupriya vs State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A writ petition under Article 226 may be dismissed when the petitioners fail to appear and prosecute the case, particularly when the respondents have submitted credible evidence (such as an approved inquiry report) contradicting the allegations, and when one of the petitioners has explicitly stated through email that no action is desired on the petition.
On this section: Sections under which corruption charges were registered against Hardeep Singh in the underlying criminal case
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-217/2013/A0004 (CC No.3 of 2013) registered for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act'). An FIR was registered on 3rd May 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the PC Act. The dispute revolves around two Compact Discs. 2. Between 8th January 2013 and 1st May 2013, the Ministry of Home Affairs had granted permission to intercept the telephone calls of accused nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. The Ministry of Home Affairs also granted permission during this period to …
-
… Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988).]" 17. This Section remained on the statute book for a period of more than ten years till the judgment in the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra) was delivered on 06.05.2014, which held it to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of Part-III of …
-
… Specifically, the predicate offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), were already included in the Schedule to PMLA when they were committed. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was part of Part B, Para 5 of the PMLA Schedule as originally enacted in 2005. Section 467 of the IPC was part of Part B, Para 1 of the PMLA Schedule as enacted in 2005. The total value of the alleged offence exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs, satisfying the monetary threshold under …
Questions about Section 7
What have the courts held on Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (15 Dec 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offence of being bribed still requires demand; demand may be inferred from circumstances. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 7 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 7, section 7 PC Act, section 7 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. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (15 Dec 2022).
What should I read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, commonly called bribery public servant or prevention of corruption, and cited as PC Act 7, 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.