Miscellaneous Provisions and the Act in Its Statutory Setting

The closing provisions of the Act are short and consequential, and they determine how it fits with everything else. Section 28 provides that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law, which is why a corruption case today ordinarily generates proceedings under several statutes at once. Section 30 repealed the Act of 1947 with a saving, and Section 31 omitted the corresponding provisions of the Penal Code. Around these sit the institutional statutes: the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, and the money laundering and benami legislation.

1. Section 28 and the General Criminal Law

Because the Act is in addition to other laws, the same facts may constitute offences under the general penal law, now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and both may be charged and tried together before the special judge under Section 4(3).

2. The Financial Statutes

1. Money laundering. Offences under this Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, so where the proceeds are handled, projected as untainted or concealed, a separate offence of money laundering arises. The property may be attached by the enforcement authority, the attachment confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and confiscation follows conviction by the special court under that Act. The regime is separate from the attachment machinery applied by Section 18A and is used more often.
2. Benami transactions. Property held in the name of another for the benefit of the public servant may be proceeded against under the benami legislation, independently of the prosecution here, and the two lines of inquiry use the same financial material.
3. Income tax. Undisclosed income is pursued separately, and the tax record is frequently relied on in a disproportionate assets case, both by the prosecution to show the absence of a declared source and by the accused to show that a source was declared.

3. The Institutional Statutes

• The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The source of the Central Bureau of Investigation's police powers. Its jurisdiction in a State depends on the consent of that State under Section 6 of that Act; the withdrawal of general consent by several States has made case-specific consent, or a direction of a constitutional court, the route in those States. A court may direct an investigation without consent, on the authority of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
• The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. Gives the Commission statutory status and superintendence over the functioning of the Establishment in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences under this Act, and provides for the selection of the Director. It also inserted Section 6A into the Act of 1946, which was struck down in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682.
• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Creates an ombudsman with power to inquire into allegations against public functionaries, to direct investigation by an agency including the Central Bureau of Investigation, and to grant sanction in the cases the Act provides. Its machinery is central to the safeguard proposed in one of the opinions in the 2026 challenge to Section 17A.

4. Departmental Proceedings

1. They are independent. The forum, the standard of proof and the consequences differ: a departmental inquiry proceeds on the preponderance of probabilities and results in a penalty under the service rules, while the criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and results in conviction and sentence.
2. They may run in parallel. There is no general rule requiring one to await the other, and both are commonly taken on the same facts.
3. A stay of the departmental inquiry may be justified where the charge in both proceedings is identical, rests on the same evidence and is of a complicated nature, so that requiring the delinquent to disclose his defence in the inquiry would prejudice him at the trial. It is a matter of discretion on the facts rather than a rule.
4. Effect of an acquittal. An acquittal on technical grounds, or by the benefit of doubt, does not preclude or invalidate a departmental penalty. Where the acquittal is honourable, on the merits and on the same evidence and the same charge, the courts have set aside the departmental penalty as unsustainable.
5. Effect of a conviction. It ordinarily founds dismissal or removal without a further inquiry, the service rules permitting action on the ground of conduct which has led to a conviction, and it is why the suspension of a conviction pending appeal is sought and is rarely granted.

5. The Closing Sections

• Section 28. The Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.
• Section 29. Amended the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 so that the offences under this Act fall within its attachment machinery, which Section 18A now applies directly.
• Section 29A. Inserted in 2018, conferring power to make rules, which is the source of the guidelines contemplated for commercial organisations under Section 9.
• Section 30. Repealed the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, with a saving under which anything done under the repealed enactments is deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
• Section 31. Omitted Sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, which this Act re-enacted in expanded form, and that omission is why those section numbers no longer exist in the general penal law.

6. Related Topics and Provisions