Home  /  Prevention of Corruption Act  /  Section 27

Section 27: Appeal and revision

Prevention of Corruption Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 26 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 28

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 27

Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 establishes the appellate and revisional framework governing judgments, orders, and sentences passed by a Special Judge. Conferring jurisdiction upon the High Court under Chapters XXIX and XXX of the CrPC (Chapters XXXI and XXXII of BNSS), it treats the Special Judge as a Court of Session within the High Court's local jurisdiction, while operating in tight synchronization with the statutory bar on interlocutory revisions in Section 19(3)(c).

  • Appellate Forum & Powers: Direct appeal against final convictions or acquittals lies exclusively to the High Court; the High Court possesses full powers to re-appreciate evidence, reverse findings of fact, or modify sentences under Section 374/378 CrPC (Sections 415/419 BNSS).
  • Interplay with Section 19(3)(c) Revision Bar: While Section 27 confers revisional powers, Section 19(3)(c) enacts a non-obstante clause prohibiting the High Court from entertaining revision petitions against interlocutory orders (such as orders framing charge or rejecting discharge).
  • Revisional Scope on Intermediate Orders: Revisions are maintainable only against 'intermediate' orders that, if decided in favor of the accused, would terminate the entire criminal proceeding (e.g., rejection of a plea of total bar due to lack of statutory sanction).
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CBI (2018) 16 SCC 299: A 3-Judge Bench held that Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act contains an absolute prohibition against entertaining revision petitions against interlocutory orders; High Courts cannot circumvent this statutory embargo by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or supervisory powers under Article 227 to stay trial proceedings.
  • High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024) 6 SCC 267: A 5-Judge Constitution Bench overruled Asian Resurfacing to the extent of its automatic vacation of stay rule, but reiterated with supreme emphasis that interlocutory interference in PC Act proceedings must remain an ultra-rare exception, strictly adhering to the legislative mandate in Section 19(3)(c) and Section 27.
  • Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1992) 2 SCC 294: The Supreme Court held that the High Court hearing an appeal under Section 27 against a conviction by a Special Judge has an obligation to independently examine the entire oral and documentary evidence to verify whether demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When challenging a Special Judge's order framing charges or refusing discharge before the High Court, framing the petition as a routine revision under Section 27/Section 397 CrPC invites threshold dismissal under Section 19(3)(c). Instead, frame the petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS as an exceptional case of pure jurisdictional illegality (e.g., invalid sanction under Section 19, absence of Section 17A approval, or lack of public servant status under Mansukhbhai).

Section 26 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 28