JUDGEMENT REVIEW: SUPREME COURT’S CLARIFICATION ON LEGAL NEEDS UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT

Case Title: Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 280
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: February 27, 2025

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case was filed on Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani who was a Minister in the Gujarat Government and he was accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations by the investigation said that he had granted fishing contracts illegally without completing proper process.  The contracts were given through a pre fixed price and did not follow a bidding process, which upset the government due to the low pricing. The Gujarat High Court took back all contracts and they were said to be sold through bidding which got more revenue. The Anti Corruption Bureau started their investigation and the high court upheld the decision. He appealed to the SCI.

 

KEY ISSUES

1. The SCI had to figure out if the case which was created by the investigation authorities was strong and was it able to establish guilt without the proper evidence that was required..
2. Did the Gujarat High Court commit an error when they did not reject the FIR even though there was no proper evidence.
3. Could the petitioner be proven innocent if it can be shown that all these grants were in public interest and if they were signed by all wings of the government.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
2. Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
3. Section 482 of the CrPC: Power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
4. Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Right to equality, ensuring fair and transparent allocation of government contracts.

 

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. No Evidence of Bribery: According to the petitioner, there is no mention or proof of the petitioner taking bribes in the reports.
2. Contracts were given for public welfare before revenue: All of these land deals were given to people of the marginalized community and they were approved by all authorities before allotment.
3. Prevention of Corruption Act is being misused: Just because the petitioner did not follow the tender process does not mean that bribes were accepted. Before, the SCI has given precedent for such cases..

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Violation of policy shows intent: The petitioner has ignored the tender process to do an under the table deal which led to a loss of ₹21.04 crores to the state which shows intent.
2. Tender Process Violation is included in the corruption act: In State of Karnataka vs. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515, the Supreme Court has also set a precedent and proven if you don’t follow process, the offense can come under the corruption act. 
3. Proper evidence: The Gujarat High Court also reviewed the cse and the reports and saw that the evidence was enough to start a case.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court of India did not accept the decision by the High Court and also commented that there is no proof or reason to have accepted the petition and proceed with the case. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proper proof of demand of money or acceptance of money is required, there was no such proof given by the investigation department. Policy violations  do not mean that there is corruption involved and while it was wrong to not follow the tender process, it does not mean the petitioner did it for corruption. Grants like these were approved by all wings of the Gujarat government and Sanghani does not seem to have benefitted in any way.

 

JUDGMENT

1. Gujarat High Court’s order was not accepted by the SCI.
2. Criminal investigation against Dileepbhai Sanghani was asked to be shut down.
3. Since there is no direct evidence of bribery, just policy violations alone do not establish corruption.
4. SCI has clarified that criminal intent does not come from presumption in Section 20 of the Corruption Act.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case has again shown that if there is a procedure gap without any proof of wrongdoing does not mean a crime was committed. Criminal prosecution must have proper evidence and not just lack of process. By not accepting the charges against the petitioner, the SCI has made sure that public officials are not tried unfairly because they deviated from policy unless and until there is clear proof. The decision impacts many corruption cases in India.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY TANMAYEE VELLORE RAGHUNANDAN