Home  /  Prevention of Corruption Act  /  Section 6

Section 6: Power to try summarily

Prevention of Corruption Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1988
Section 5 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 6

Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 confers discretionary power on the Special Judge to try in a summary manner any offense specified in Section 3(1) committed by a public servant in relation to the contravention of special orders under Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Designed for expeditious adjudication of regulatory corruption linked to public distribution systems, it applies the summary trial procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure while imposing a statutory ceiling on custodial sentences.

  • Discretionary Inherent Invocability: The Special Judge may, if he thinks fit, opt for summary trial specifically where corrupt practices intersect with contraventions of special orders promulgated under Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
  • Application of CrPC Summary Trial Code: Section 6(1) incorporates Sections 262 to 265 of the CrPC (Sections 283 to 288 BNSS), dispensing with elaborate charge framing and formal cross-examination protocols unless required by the interests of justice.
  • Sentencing Cap & Procedural Conversion: Under the proviso to Section 6(1), the maximum sentence of imprisonment in a summary trial cannot exceed one year; sub-section (2) mandates that if during the trial it appears undesirable to try summarily, the judge must recall witnesses and switch to warrant trial.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of Maharashtra v. V.D. Deshmukh (1997) 10 SCC 430: The Supreme Court held that the invocation of summary procedure under special anti-corruption provisions linked to essential commodities requires a conscious exercise of judicial discretion; where complex questions of conspiracy or extensive misappropriation arise, proceeding summarily is an irregularity that warrants conversion to warrant trial.
  • N. Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) 13 SCC 217: The Supreme Court affirmed that while summary powers are designed to accelerate trials in regulatory offenses, procedural safeguards protecting the accused against prejudice cannot be compromised, and any conversion under Section 6(2) must ensure de novo examination or recall of vital prosecution witnesses.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If the prosecution seeks a summary trial under Section 6 in a case involving intricate accounts, voluminous documentary evidence, or severe penalties, immediately file an objection under Section 6(2) requesting conversion to warrant trial. Demonstrate that a summary procedure would prejudice the defense's ability to conduct exhaustive cross-examination on technical ledgers, stock registers, and entrapment memos.

Section 5 All 31 Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7