Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 · Chapter II: Appointment of Special Judges
Section 4: Cases triable by special Judges
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only.
(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.
(3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the trial of an offence shall be held, as far as practicable, on day-to-day basis and an endeavour shall be made to ensure that the said trial is concluded within a period of two years:
Provided that where the trial is not concluded within the said period, the special Judge shall record the reasons for not having done so:
Provided further that the said period may be extended by such further period, for reasons to be recorded in writing but not exceeding six months at a time; so, however, that the said period together with such extended period shall not exceed ordinarily four years in aggregate.]
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 4
-
Daivshala & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
The primary question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the accident which caused the death of the deceased could be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Also, certain…
-
The State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
Merely because a Central Government employee works within the territory of a particular State, whether the CBI requires consent from the concerned State Government to register an FIR against such Central Government…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. The State of Karnataka
- Mrs. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Girlsh Kumar Suneja v. C.B.L.
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- M/S. Hcl Lnfosystem Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- State Through Cbi, Chennai v. V. Arul Kumar
- Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab