Home  /  Prevention of Corruption Act  /  Section 23

Section 23: Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under section 13(1)(a)

Prevention of Corruption Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 22 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 24

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 23

Section 23 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prescribes a relaxed statutory rule for framing charges in disproportionate assets prosecutions under Section 13(1)(b) (pre-2018 Section 13(1)(e)). Relaxing the rigid particulars requirement of general criminal law, it permits the prosecution to specify the gross amount of pecuniary resources or property acquired during the entire check period and the bounding dates without enumerating every individual asset or exact date of purchase, overriding the one-year limitation in Section 212(2) CrPC.

  • Relaxation of Section 212(2) CrPC Restriction: Expressly overrides the general mandate of Section 212(2) CrPC (Section 235(2) BNSS) which restricts a single charge of criminal misappropriation to offenses committed within a one-year window; allows charging aggregate assets accumulated across decades.
  • Gross Valuation Sufficiency: It is statutorily sufficient to state the gross value of disproportionate wealth acquired during the designated check period without itemizing the exact date, transaction hour, or individual cost of every parcel of land, vehicle, or jewellery item.
  • Fixation of Check Period: While the charge need not itemize individual assets, the check period (the start and end dates) must be clearly demarcated and cannot be arbitrarily shifted by the prosecution to artificially inflate the disproportion ratio.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655: A 5-Judge Constitution Bench ruled that in disproportionate assets cases under the PC Act, it is impossible for the prosecution to specify the exact date of acquisition of every illicit item; Section 23 (and its predecessor in the 1947 Act) permits a composite charge covering the entire check period, casting the burden on the public servant to satisfactorily account for his pecuniary resources.
  • State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla (1987) Supp SCC 379: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution has the discretion to select the check period, but that selection cannot be whimsical, oppressive, or arbitrary; where the check period is selectively chosen to exclude known legitimate inflows or include pre-service assets, the charge and resulting disproportion assessment are vitiated.
  • J. Jayalalitha v. State of Karnataka (2017) 11 SCC 1: The Supreme Court affirmed that in a disproportionate assets charge framed pursuant to Section 23, the court must arrive at the net disproportion by evaluating total income from all lawful sources, total allowable expenditure, and total value of assets acquired across the check period, holding that an unexplained surplus constitutes the gravamen of the offense.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

The defense strategy in a Section 23 disproportionate assets trial turns entirely on the check period audit. Challenge the prosecution's check period selection if it deliberately excludes the accused's high-earning early career years or spouses' independent ancestral property. File an application demanding a detailed schedule of assets with corresponding valuation reports to ensure the defense can prepare specific rebuttals regarding each item's acquisition source.

Section 22 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 24