Without Prior Conviction, You Can’t Be Called a Habitual Offender Under Anti-Corruption Law: Kerala High Court Clarifies Section 14 of PC Act

“Mere repetition of bribes doesn’t make one a habitual offender under Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prior conviction is a must” - On November 5, 2025, the Kerala High Court rejecting the CBI’s attempt to prosecute two accused as “habitual offenders” under Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of any prior conviction. Justice A. Badharudeen, while deciding three connected revision petitions, firmly held that repeated acts of bribery alone are not sufficient to attract the harsher provision of Section 14, which deals with habitual commission of bribery. However, the Court allowed trial to proceed against the same accused under Section 12, finding sufficient material suggesting abetment of bribery based on bank records, forensic evidence and witness statements.

“If there is no conviction for previous offences under the PC Act, prosecution under Section 14 is not legally sustainable”

In a judgment interpreting a vital aspect of anti-corruption law, the Kerala High Court ruled that repeated acts of paying bribes do not, by themselves, establish that a person is a ‘habitual offender’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court emphasized that Section 14 can only be invoked against someone who has been previously convicted of similar offences, especially after the 2018 amendment to the Act.

The ruling came in a set of revision petitions filed by both the accused and the CBI, challenging a common order passed by the Special Judge (CBI) Court, Ernakulam, which had partially accepted and rejected discharge pleas filed by the accused.

The CBI had registered a case alleging that the 2nd and 4th accused repeatedly paid bribes to a senior official (1st accused) working in various high-ranking positions at FACT (Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.). According to the prosecution:

“...the 2nd accused habitually abetted the 1st accused... by paying him bribes totaling ₹50,000 in six separate transactions between 2005 and 2011 through bank transfers.”

Similarly, the 4th accused was alleged to have made eight payments totaling ₹1,01,000 between 2007 and 2010 into the same bank account of the 1st accused. The prosecution alleged these were acts of habitual abetment, attracting both Section 12 (abetment) and Section 14 (habitual commission) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Special Court had allowed the discharge of both the 2nd and 4th accused under Section 14 but rejected their discharge under Section 12. Aggrieved, the CBI approached the High Court challenging the discharge under Section 14, while the accused also challenged the refusal of discharge under Section 12.

Can Repeated Acts Alone Amount to ‘Habitual Offence’ Without Prior Conviction?

The High Court tackled this central legal question by examining the statutory meaning of ‘habitual offender’ and the impact of the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Justice A. Badharudeen categorically stated:

“The P.C. Act, 1988, does not define habitual offender and the amended provision under Section 14 deals with punishment for habitual offender, in relation to a person already convicted of an offence under the P.C. Act.”

The Court observed that unlike other laws such as the Kerala Habitual Offenders Act, 1960, which provides for a formal declaration of habitual offender status through legal procedures, the Prevention of Corruption Act requires a prior conviction as a condition precedent post-amendment.

Referencing the language of amended Section 14, the Court noted:

“...as per the amended provision... whoever convicted of an offence under this Act, subsequently commits another, shall be punishable under Section 14.”

Justice Badharudeen made it clear that:

“Mere repetition of bribe payments without prior conviction is insufficient to invoke Section 14... there must be a previous conviction for any one of the said offences.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of similar expressions in cases like Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police (AIR 1966 SC 1766) and Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14, and observed:

“A habitual offender is one who is a criminal by habit or disposition formed by repetition of crimes... But mere allegations or belief are not enough; there must be reasonable grounds and, more importantly, a prior conviction.”

Thus, the Court upheld the discharge of both the 2nd and 4th accused under Section 14, dismissing the CBI’s contention.

Court’s Finding on Section 12: Prima Facie Case of Abetment Exists

While the High Court refused to reinstate Section 14 charges, it took a different view regarding the abetment charge under Section 12, particularly against the 2nd accused.

The Court noted that the prosecution had placed documentary evidence, including bank account records, remittance slips, forensic handwriting reports, and statements of approvers to show that bribe payments were made to the 1st accused.

Regarding the 4th accused, the Court observed:

“...as per document No.8 series, the 4th accused paid illegal gratification to the 1st accused on three occasions... supported by receipts, witness statements, and FSL report.”

It rejected the argument that the forensic report lacked depth, stating:

“The validity of the FSL report is a matter of evidence and cannot be conclusively evaluated at the pre-trial stage.”

As to the 2nd accused, the Court found that his discharge under Section 12 was not sustainable because the Special Judge had wrongly assumed that the materials did not raise even a grave suspicion. Referring to the multiple documents placed on record by the CBI, the Court observed:

“There was a transfer of money from the side of the 2nd accused to the 1st accused... Therefore, the ingredients to attract offence under Section 12 are prima facie made out or at least raise grave suspicion.”

Thus, the High Court set aside the discharge of the 2nd accused under Section 12, and directed him to face trial.

The High Court delivered the following operative directions:

“Crl.Rev.Pet. No.324/2022 stands dismissed – the 4th accused must face trial under Section 12.”

“Crl.Rev.Pet. No.5/2024 stands dismissed – discharge of 4th accused under Section 14 is confirmed.”

“Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2/2024 is allowed in part – 2nd accused must face trial under Section 12; discharge under Section 14 is upheld.”

The 2nd accused was directed to surrender before the Special Court on 19.11.2025 for further proceedings. The Court clarified that observations made in the judgment are not binding for trial purposes, and the case must be tried based on evidence.

This judgment offers vital clarity on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, especially after the 2018 amendments. The Kerala High Court has now firmly established that prior conviction is a legal requirement to invoke the harsher penalty for habitual commission of corruption offences. The ruling also reinforces that prima facie evidence of abetment, if supported by documents and witness statements, is sufficient to proceed under Section 12, even without direct proof of demand.

By separating the concepts of repetitive illegal acts and habitual criminality, the Court has ensured that the law remains both stringent and fair.

Date of Decision: 05.11.2025