Supreme Court of India Judgements

47010 Judgements hosted as on 01/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corruption

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) — Section 18A — PC Act read with Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 102 — Seizure vs. Attachment/Confiscation of Property — Whether power of police officer to freeze accounts under Section 102 CrPC is co-existent or mutually exclusive with the machinery for attachment under Section 18A PC Act — Held, the powers are separate, distinct, and co-existent, not mutually exclusive. (Paras 2, 8, 11)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1413 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR DEY ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Anticipatory Bail Corruption

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Bail — Anticipatory Bail — Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against High Court’s rejection of bail in anticipation of arrest — Custodial interrogation not required — Appellant may be admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest upon arrest, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the trial court — Appellant directed not to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts to authorities.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH KUMAR PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.4371 of…

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Demand and acceptance of bribe — Essential to prove demand and acceptance by public servant — Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without demand is not an offence — Prosecution must prove foundational facts through oral or documentary evidence — Presumption under Section 20 is mandatory and subject to rebuttal; presumption of fact is discretionary — High Court erred in reversing acquittal based on inferences and conjectures, ignoring glaring contradictions in prosecution evidence.

Jul 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 868 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Acquittal Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) a— Illegal gratification — Demand and Acceptance — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Where prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant (Revenue Inspector) suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of complainant (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses (PW7) Minor discrepancies may not be fatal, but serious contradictions going to root of matter, rendering evidence untrustworthy, are grounds for acquittal.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 655 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARITALA SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 [@…

Corruption Service

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) — The respondent, an Income Tax officer, was denied promotion due to pending criminal charges and a sealed cover procedure was adopted — Whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction constitutes pending criminal charges, justifying the sealed cover procedure — Petitioner argue that the prosecution sanction implies pending criminal charges, warranting the sealed cover procedure — Respondent states that no criminal charges were pending at the time of the DPC meeting, making the sealed cover procedure unjustified —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, rejecting the sealed cover procedure as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting —The prosecution for criminal charges is considered pending only after a charge sheet is issued — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was found fit for promotion.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 729 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DOLY LOYI — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Bail Granted Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 201 and 120B — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Manish Sisodia’s bail applications were rejected by the High Court of Delhi — He is involved in cases registered by the CBI and ED related to alleged irregularities in Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22 —Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering the prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial — Petitioner argues that the trial is delayed, and the appellant has been in custody for a long time — The prosecution has not completed the investigation, and the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace — ED Contends that the appellant is influential and may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses — The trial delay is due to the appellant’s actions — The Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and noting the prolonged incarceration — The trial has not commenced despite assurances, and the appellant’s prolonged detention violates the right to liberty — The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and bail should not be withheld as punishment — The court also considered the large volume of documents and witnesses involved — The appellant is granted bail with conditions to ensure his presence at trial and prevent tampering with evidence.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 595 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence – The appeal challenges the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to quash an FIR against respondent for alleged bribery, based on a complaint by the appellant – The main issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, which was based on allegations of bribery and corruption against the respondent – The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision legally unsustainable, noting that it failed to consider direct evidence, such as a pendrive, indicating the respondent’s complicity – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the FIR for further legal proceedings.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 331 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJU RAJAN NAYAR — Appellant Vs. JAYARAJ AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.…

Corruption

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) – The court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s orders are not conclusive for the criminal case and that a full trial is necessary to evaluate the evidence – The court analyzed precedents and laws, concluding that findings in tax proceedings do not automatically negate criminal charges for disproportionate assets – The court upheld the charges, stating that the appellants did not provide sufficient grounds to interfere with the order on charge and the framing of charges.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET SABHARWAL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. CBI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw
Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw