The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, in their application to any proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act have effect as if—
(a) in sub-section (1) of section 243, for the words "The accused shall then be called upon", the words "The accused shall then be required to state whether he wishes to examine any witnesses" had been substituted;
(b) in sub-section (2) of section 309, after the third proviso, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:—
"
Provided also that the proceeding shall not be adjourned or postponed merely on the ground that an application under section 397 has been made by a party to the proceeding.";
(c) after sub-section (2) of section 317, the following sub-section had been inserted, namely:—
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination.";
(d) in sub-section (1) of section 397, before the Explanation, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:—
"
Provided that no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings."
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22
Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 governs the procedural interface between the PC Act and the general criminal law, mandating the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to all warrants, summonses, searches, seizures, and trials before the Special Judge. Subject to the express modifications carved out in Sections 5 and 6, it harmonizes the special procedural regime with general criminal jurisprudence under the canon of lex specialis derogat legi generali.
In drafting quashing or discharge petitions under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) or Section 227 CrPC (Section 250 BNSS), explicitly address the stringent threshold reaffirmed in High Court Bar Association and Asian Resurfacing. Do not merely plead factual contradictions; establish a fundamental jurisdictional defect—such as total absence of sanction under Section 19 or violation of Section 17A—which vitiates the proceedings at the threshold and justifies High Court intervention.