Offence relating to bribing of a public servant
Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with offence relating to bribing of a public servant. Any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention-- (i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
1[8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant.--(1) Any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention--
(i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; or
(ii) to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply where a person is compelled to give such undue advantage:
Provided further that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage:
Provided also that when the offence under this section has been committeed by commercial organisation, such commercial organisation shall be punishable with fine.
Illustration.--A person, 'P' gives a public servant, 'S' an amount of ten thousand rupees to ensure that he is granted a license, over all the other bidders. 'P' is guilty of an offence under this sub-section.
Explanation.--It shall be immaterial whether the person to whom an undue advantage is given or promised to be given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the public duty concerned, and, it shall also be immaterial whether such undue advantage is given or promised to be given by the person directly or through a third party.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person, if that person, after informing a law enforcement authority or investigating agency, gives or promises to give any undue advantage to another person in order to assist such law enforcement authority or investigating agency in its investigation of the offence alleged against the later.]
Section 8, 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.
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing successive public interest litigation petitions with identical claims and unsubstantiated allegations against the judicial system to secure constitution of special investigation teams, when the underlying FIR does not name any sitting judge and the matter has already been decided, constitutes gross abuse of court process. Such petitions unnecessarily bring the entire judicial system into disrepute and must be dismissed with exemplary costs to protect judicial independence and integrity, with the understanding that judicial immunity exists for sitting judges but not for retired judges under constitutional law as established in K. Veeraswami.
On this section: Applied to allege commission of offense punishable under Section 8 of the PCA in relation to the alleged bribery and gratification to public servants
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability And Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Successive writ petitions filed on identical facts and grounds after dismissal of the first petition constitute gross abuse of the process of court and warrant dismissal with exemplary costs. Public Interest Litigation, while serving a noble purpose, cannot be used to make unfounded allegations against the judiciary without reasonable basis, especially when the allegations are contradicted by the facts of the FIR itself. The Court will not entertain petitions that unnecessarily bring the judicial system into disrepute by presupposing investigation of sitting judges when no such investigation is in fact pending.
On this section: Section 8 was cited in the FIR to allege commission of offence related to inducing public servants through gratification by corrupt and illegal means
-
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a writ petition seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Chief Justice on allegations of judicial bribery has already been rejected by the Supreme Court on substantive grounds (that the FIR was filed after the case was decided, that no sitting judges are named, that the allegations are factually untenable, and that the K. Veeraswami doctrine protects judges from such investigations), the filing of an identical successive petition with the same facts, arguments, and counsel raising the same relief constitutes gross abuse of process and contempt of court, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs and warning of potential debarment from future PIL filings. The Court cannot allow judicial independence to be undermined by successive frivolous petitions making unfounded allegations against the judicial system.
On this section: FIR alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 8 (criminal misconduct by public servant) against the named accused, though the Court noted this was not established
-
International Traders through Prop. Saket Aggarwal vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Chief Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing of successive identical writ petitions seeking the same relief with identical facts and submissions, after one petition has been dismissed, constitutes gross abuse of the process of court. A petition that brings the entire judicial system into unwarranted disrepute by making unfounded allegations of corruption against unnamed public servants and private persons, without naming any sitting judge (in violation of the K. Veeraswami doctrine), and fails to appreciate settled law on judicial independence, is not maintainable as a public interest litigation and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to deter future abuse.
On this section: The FIR alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the named persons; the court noted that no sitting judge was named in the FIR in violation of K. Veeraswami principles
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability And Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A petition that seeks to constitute a Special Investigation Team to investigate allegations of judicial corruption, where the underlying FIR relates to a retired judge and private persons (not sitting judges), where the matter being allegedly corrupted was already decided before the FIR was filed, and where substantially identical petitions have already been dismissed on the same grounds within days, constitutes a gross abuse of the process of court and scandalizes the judicial system without reasonable basis. Such frivolous petitions must be dismissed with exemplary costs to deter filing of successive petitions and to protect the institutional credibility of the judiciary.
On this section: Referenced as the statutory provision under which the alleged offences of bribery and gratification of public servants are allegedly punishable in the underlying FIR
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability And Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing of successive writ petitions raising identical issues, facts, and prayers after dismissal of a prior petition on the same subject matter constitutes gross abuse of process of court and warrants dismissal with exemplary costs. The Court will not permit the PIL mechanism to be weaponized against the judicial system through unfounded allegations that lack logical or factual foundation, particularly where the operative facts (prior decision by the court) render the allegations impossible. Protection of judicial independence requires that judges not be subjected to unfounded investigations or defamatory allegations through abuse of PIL process, and courts must exercise judicious restraint in entertaining such petitions to preserve the integrity and dignity of the institution.
On this section: The FIR was registered against named and unknown accused under Section 8 of the PCA for alleged acceptance of bribes by public servants to perform illegal acts. The court discussed the investigative framework under this statute in context of protecting judicial independence.
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability And Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Successive petitions raising identical facts, reliefs, and legal arguments, without any new material information or circumstances, constitute gross abuse of court process and demonstrate contempt of court. A petition seeking to constitute a Special Investigation Team to investigate unsubstantiated allegations of judicial corruption, when no sitting Judge is actually under investigation and the alleged facts are logically impossible to have influenced the judicial decision, is frivolous and contemptuous. Public Interest Litigations containing scandalous allegations against the judicial system without reasonable factual basis, filed by organizations claiming to espouse judicial accountability, must be dismissed with exemplary costs to deter future abuse and protect the reputation and independence of the judiciary.
On this section: Alleged criminal conspiracy was pursued under this section through the CBI FIR; the court discussed whether such allegations against judges are permissible without proper procedure
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability And Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Successive petitions filed on identical grounds seeking the same relief constitute gross abuse of the process of court when the earlier petition raising the same issues has already been decided by the Court. Where allegations of judicial corruption are not grounded in fact - particularly where no FIR has been filed against any sitting judge, where the case alleged to involve corruption had already been disposed before the alleged bribe was to be paid, and where the petitioner presumes involvement of the highest judiciary without factual basis - such petitions are frivolous and contemptuous, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs and a warning against further abuse of public interest litigation.
On this section: Alleged offense of public servant demanding or accepting gratification for inducing favorable judicial order; cited in the FIR to describe potential criminal conduct of the retired judge
-
Campaign For Judicial Accountability And Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing of successive writ petitions on identical matters raising the same relief and based on the same FIR, particularly after a prior petition on the identical issue has been dismissed, constitutes gross abuse of court process and contempt of court. Such petitions, which make unfounded allegations against the highest judicial functionaries without any reasonable basis and without any sitting judge being implicated in any registered FIR, amount to scandalizing the judiciary and unnecessarily bringing the entire judicial system into disrepute. Such petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and may entail debarment from filing further public interest litigation. The petition must be evaluated not only on its legal merits but also on the pattern of litigation conduct and the evident attempt to damage the credibility of the judicial system.
On this section: Alleged commission of offense punishable under Section 8 (by soliciting or accepting gratification as motive or reward for exerting influence) - The FIR referenced alleged violations but the Court noted no actual favorable order was granted, undermining the corruption allegation
-
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: Core provision on taking gratification to influence public servants - interpreted to apply to private persons accepting bribes from any person (including public servants) to influence another public servant
-
G Uday Kumar vs State of Ap
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Panel valuers and private professionals cannot be prosecuted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B IPC based solely on the opinion given by them in a bank fraud conspiracy case without establishing a proper and acceptable link between their professional opinion and the criminal conspiracy, and therefore are entitled to anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
On this section: Provision allowing prosecution of private persons acting in conspiracy with public servants; cited by respondent to argue petitioner can be prosecuted despite not being a public servant
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 …
-
… Therefore, it is submitted that it is evident that Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC are attracted by the aforementioned actions of the petitioner. - 38.At the outset, the charge sheet against the present petitioner have been filed under Sections 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 120B and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet, learned Trial Court ordered for framing of the charge against the petitioner. Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides the procedure for …
-
… The accused No.1 ran away from the spot. 3. After investigation, the final report was filed at the court below which took cognizance of the case as C.C.No.61/2008. 4. All the accused appeared at the court below. After hearing both sides, the court below framed charge against the accused under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') read with Section 34 of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained to them who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts. P1 to P16. MO1 to MO6 were identified. On the side of the …
Questions about Section 8
What have the courts held on Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Campaign For Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs Union Of India (03 Nov 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Applied to allege commission of offense punishable under Section 8 of the PCA in relation to the alleged bribery and gratification to public servants. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 8 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 8, section 8 PC Act, section 8 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. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Campaign For Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs Union Of India (03 Nov 2017).
What should I read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 8, 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.