Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 · Chapter III: Offences and Penalties
Section 11: Public servant obtaining undue advantage, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant
Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains *** or attempts to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any [undue advantage] without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the [official functions or public duty] of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 11
-
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s criminal revision application and refused to the quash the order of the Trial Court rejecting the appellant’s discharge application in a case for offences under the Prevention of…
-
The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka
Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption…
-
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the arrest of the appellants u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was valid; whether there was proper compliance with s.19(1) of the Act of 2002 and as to whether the Vacation Judge/Additional…
- Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli and Others
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venkateshwarlu
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Centeral Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- State Through CBI New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh
- Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.