27 percent

IT Act

Section	Relevance	PYQ Reference (Why it is Relevant)	Possible Questions
Section 4	Very High	2021 Q47: Asked about “Legal recognition of electronic records”. 2023 Q114: Tested the requirement of “writing” being satisfied by electronic form.	1. Does an email satisfy the legal requirement of a “written” contract? (Yes). 2. Does Section 4 apply to Wills or Negotiable Instruments? (No, Schedule 1 exceptions).
Section 17-26 (Controller / CCA)	High	2023 Q115: Powers of Controller to suspend/revoke license. 2023 Q116: License renewal application timing. 2021 Q43: Publication of Electronic Signature Certificate.	1. Who appoints the Controller of Certifying Authorities? (Central Govt). 2. Can a license be suspended without notice? (Yes, for limited period – proviso to Sec 25).
Section 43	Medium	Implicit in 2021 Q41/46: Deals with damages/compensation.	1. Distinction between “Compensation” (Sec 43) and “Fine” (Sec 66).
Section 46	Very High	2021 Q46: Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Officer (AO). Tested the “5 Crore” limit and “Civil Court” status.	1. Does the Adjudicating Officer have jurisdiction for claims above ₹5 Crore? (No, Court has). 2. Is the AO a “Court”? (Deemed Civil Court).
Section 47	Medium	2021 Q41: Factors to be considered by AO for compensation (Gain of unfair advantage, loss, repetitive nature).	1. Which factor is irrelevant for deciding compensation? (e.g., “Precautions taken” was the answer in PYQ).
Section 57	Critical	2021 Q44: Challenging decisions (Appeal). 2023 Q117: Appeals against Controller’s orders lie to whom? (TDSAT).	1. Who hears appeals against the Adjudicating Officer? (TDSAT). 2. Limitation period for appeal to TDSAT? (45 days? Check specific acts).
Section 62	High	2021 Q44: Second Appeal to High Court.	1. On what grounds can an appeal be filed to the High Court? (Substantial Question of Law).
Section 66A	Very High	2021 Q40: Struck down as unconstitutional (Shreya Singhal case).	1. Which case struck down Section 66A? 2. Is sending “grossly offensive” messages still an offence under IT Act? (No, unless covered by other IPC sections).
Section 70A	Medium	2021 Q42: Nodal Agency for Critical Information Infrastructure (NCIIPC).	1. Who designates the “National Nodal Agency”? (Central Govt). 2. What is “Critical Information Infrastructure”? (Sec 70).
Section 77A	Medium	2021 Q45: Compounding of offences. Tested which offences cannot be compounded.	1. Can an offence punishable with life imprisonment be compounded? (No). 2. Can an offence be compounded if the accused has a previous conviction? (No).

Detailed Analysis: Why These Sections Are Relevant?

1. The “Adjudication” Cluster (Sections 46, 47, 57)

• Why: The examiner loves the distinction between Civil Liability (Compensation managed by Adjudicating Officer) and Criminal Liability (Jail/Fine managed by Criminal Courts).
• Key Fact: The Adjudicating Officer handles claims up to ₹5 Crore. Above that, it goes to a competent court. Appeals go to TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal), not the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CyAT is merged into TDSAT). This “Tribunal Merger” is a favorite topic.

2. The “Controller” Cluster (Sections 17-34)

• Why: In 2023, the paper moved away from crimes (hacking) to administration (licensing of digital signatures).
• Focus: How does one become a Certifying Authority (CA)? When can the Controller revoke a license? (Section 25).

3. The “Constitutionality” Cluster (Section 66A)

• Why: Even though Section 66A is dead (struck down), it is historically significant. Questions ask about the Shreya Singhal judgment or whether specific acts (sending offensive emails) are punishable today.

4. The “Legal Recognition” Cluster (Sections 4-10)

• Why: This defines the validity of e-Governance.
• Key Concept: “Functional Equivalence” — An electronic record is legally equivalent to paper if it is accessible for future reference (Section 4).

Summary of Action Plan for IT Act

1. Memorize the Hierarchy: Adjudicating Officer (up to 5 Cr) $\rightarrow$ TDSAT $\rightarrow$ High Court.
2. Know the “Dead” Section: Section 66A is unconstitutional (Shreya Singhal).
3. Understand Compounding (Sec 77A): Offences with imprisonment > 3 years cannot be compounded. (Check the specific limit in the section; usually, serious crimes are excluded).
4. Exceptions (Schedule 1): Know where IT Act does not apply (Wills, Trusts, Power of Attorney, Sale of Real Estate).

Relevant Judgements

The Information Technology Act, 2000 has seen significant judicial activity in 2024 and 2025. Here are the most relevant cases for a CBI Public Prosecutor, categorized by key themes:

1. Freedom of Speech & Internet Regulations

• Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024) [Supreme Court]
  • Topic: Section 66A Legacy / Internet Speech
  • Relevance: The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered against a professor for a WhatsApp status criticizing the abrogation of Article 370.
  • Key Principle: The Court held that dissent is a right under Article 19(1)(a). Criticism of state actions on social media cannot be penalized unless it incites violence or public disorder. It reinforces the protection of online speech absent malicious intent to incite enmity.
  • Why Relevant: Prosecutors must distinguish between legitimate political dissent and actionable cyber crimes (like hate speech/incitement).
• Editors Guild of India v. Union of India (2024) [Supreme Court]
  • Topic: “Fact Check Unit” (FCU) / IT Rules 2023
  • Relevance: The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Union Government’s notification establishing a “Fact Check Unit” to flag fake news about the government.
  • Key Principle: The Court observed that the rule raises “serious constitutional questions” regarding freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)). This effectively puts a hold on the government’s power to be the sole arbiter of truth on social media until the Bombay High Court decides the matter finally.
• X Corp v. Union of India (2025) [Karnataka High Court]
  • Topic: Section 69A (Blocking Orders)
  • Relevance: X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenged the government’s power to issue “blanket” blocking orders against accounts rather than specific tweets.
  • Key Principle: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the government’s power to issue blocking orders under Section 69A. It ruled that X Corp, being a foreign entity, cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19. It validated the “Sahyog” portal used for takedown coordination.

2. Digital Evidence & Search Seizure

• Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India (2024-25 Context)
  • Topic: Seizure of Digital Devices
  • Relevance: This ongoing PIL addresses the lack of guidelines for seizing phones/laptops of journalists and individuals.
  • Key Development: The Supreme Court directed the Union to frame guidelines. Until then, agencies must follow the CBI Manual for digital seizures. It emphasized that “privacy is not just a physical concept but extends to digital footprints.” The court is actively monitoring this to prevent arbitrary seizures without judicial warrants.
  • Why Relevant: Directly impacts how CBI officers seize digital evidence. Seizures without following proper hash-value procedures or cloning may be challenged based on these proceedings.

3. Right to be Forgotten (Privacy)

• ABC v. State (2024) [Delhi High Court]
  • Topic: Redaction of Acquitted Persons’ Data
  • Relevance: The High Court ordered the masking/redaction of the name of an accused from online judgment records after they were acquitted.
  • Key Principle: The “Right to be Forgotten” is part of the Right to Dignity (Article 21). Once a person is acquitted, keeping their name associated with a crime in public search results serves no public interest and causes “digital stigma”.
• Bhatnagar Case (2024) [Delhi District Court]
  • Topic: De-indexing from Google
  • Relevance: A Delhi Court ordered Google and media houses to de-index articles related to a man exonerated in a money laundering case.
  • Key Principle: Irrelevant and outdated information that harms reputation must be removed from easy public access, reinforcing the right to be forgotten even before a specific statutory data protection law is fully operational.

4. Tax & Jurisdiction (International)

• Case on Permanent Establishment (2025) [Supreme Court]
  • Topic: Digital/Virtual Presence as PE
  • Relevance: The Supreme Court discussed whether a foreign company’s digital presence or occasional employee visits constitute a “Permanent Establishment” (PE) for tax purposes in India.
  • Key Principle: It reaffirmed that a fixed place of business is essential. Mere digital interaction or short visits (less than threshold) do not automatically create a PE for taxation under DTAA.

Summary Table for 2025 Exam

Case Name	Topic	Key Principle (The “Answer”)
Javed Ahmad Hajam (2024)	Online Speech	Criticism of govt (Art 370) on WhatsApp is not an offence under 153A IPC unless it incites violence.
Editors Guild v. UOI (2024)	Fact Check Unit	SC stayed the FCU notification; Govt cannot unilaterally declare news “fake” pending judicial review.
X Corp v. UOI (2025)	Blocking (Sec 69A)	Foreign platforms cannot claim Article 19 rights; Blocking orders by Govt are valid.
Foundation for Media Professionals	Device Seizure	Digital device seizures must follow due process/guidelines; arbitrary seizure without warrant is problematic.
ABC v. State (2024)	Right to Forgotten	Acquitted persons have a right to have their names masked/redacted from online court records.

EP Act:

majorly see section 5, 15, 19

Section	Topic	Why Relevant for CBI APP (Prediction)
Section 2	Definitions	Focus on (a) “Environment” (includes water, air, land and inter-relationship), (b) “Environmental Pollutant”, and (e) “Hazardous Substance”.
Section 3	Power of Central Govt	The broad power to take measures to protect the environment. Note Section 3(3), which allows the Govt to constitute an authority (like EPCA) – this is often asked.
Section 5	Power to Give Directions	MOST CRITICAL. Empower the Central Govt to issue directions for closure, prohibition, or regulation of any industry or stoppage of electricity/water. Key Case: M.C. Mehta.
Section 7	Emission Standards	Prohibits carrying on any industry that emits environmental pollutants in excess of prescribed standards. This is the core offence.
Section 10	Power of Entry	Empowering officers to enter premises for inspection. Crucial for investigation procedure.
Section 11	Power to Take Samples	PROCEDURAL GOLD. Detailed procedure on how to take samples, dividing them into two parts, and sending them to the environmental lab. If this procedure is violated, the case fails.
Section 15	Penalty	MUST MEMORIZE. Punishment is up to 5 years or fine up to ₹1 Lakh or both. • If failure continues: ₹5,000/day. • If continues beyond 1 year: Imprisonment up to 7 years.
Section 16	Offences by Companies	Standard “Vicarious Liability” clause. The person “in charge of and responsible to” the company is liable.
Section 17	Offences by Govt Depts	The Head of Department (HoD) is deemed guilty unless they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence.
Section 19	Cognizance of Offences	JURISDICTIONAL TRAP. Courts cannot take cognizance except on a complaint by: 1. Central Govt/Authorized Officer. 2. Any person who has given 60 days’ notice of intention to make a complaint.
Section 24	Effect of Other Laws	If an act is an offence under EPA and another law, the offender is punished under the other law (if punishment is higher/specific) or EPA? Check specifics: Usually, EPA prevails if consistent, but Section 24 says if an offence is punishable under this Act and any other Act, the offender shall be punished under the other Act.

Relevant Judgements:

1. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024-25)

• Topic: Right against Climate Change.
• Why Relevant: This is the most historic environmental judgment of the decade.
• Court’s Holding:
  • New Fundamental Right: The Supreme Court (CJ DY Chandrachud) declared that the “Right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” is a distinct fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21.
  • Basis: It links Articles 48A (State’s duty) and 51A(g) (Citizen’s duty) to the Right to Life.
  • Impact: This expands the scope of the EPA. Now, failure to regulate emissions is a violation of fundamental rights.

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (October 2024 Order)

• Topic: Section 15 Penalties (EPA) & New Rules.
• Why Relevant: This order forced the government to finally implement the new penalty regime.
• Court’s Holding:
  • The “Toothless” Act: The SC heavily criticized the Union Government because the Jan Vishwas (Amendment) Act, 2023 had decriminalized EPA offences (replacing jail with penalties), but the government failed to frame rules to impose those penalties, making the Act “toothless.”
  • Outcome: Following this SC reprimand, the Ministry notified the Environment Protection (Manner of Holding Inquiry and Imposition of Penalty) Rules, 2024 in November 2024.
  • Relevance for APP: You must know that Section 15 no longer carries imprisonment for first offences; it is now a high monetary penalty (up to ₹15 Lakh) adjudicated by an officer, not a court.

3. Union of India v. Rajiv Suri (November 2024)

• Topic: State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA).
• Why Relevant: It deals with the institutional machinery under Section 3(3) of EPA.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Mandatory Bodies: The SC ruled that SEIAAs (which grant environmental clearances) must be constituted in all states within six weeks.
  • Reasoning: Without SEIAAs, the clearance process is centralized and inefficient. This reinforces the decentralized model of environmental governance.

4. Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd v. UP Pollution Control Board (January 2025)

• Topic: Environmental Compensation vs. PMLA.
• Why Relevant: It connects Environment Law with Money Laundering (PMLA)—a perfect CBI exam question.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Limits of NGT: The SC struck down an NGT order that tried to link environmental violations to PMLA charges.
  • Rule: Environmental Compensation calculations must be scientific. NGT cannot arbitrarily direct PMLA investigations unless there is a specific “Scheduled Offence” involved.

5. Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody (2025)

• Topic: Sustainable Development vs. Urban Planning.
• Why Relevant: A landmark case balancing ecology with planned city growth.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Balanced Approach: The SC allowed the development of Auroville (“Crown Project”), stating that not all tree felling is illegal if it is part of a sanctioned sustainable development plan with compensatory afforestation.

6. Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (August 2025)

• Topic: Powers of Pollution Control Boards (PCBs).
• Why Relevant: Clarifies the power to impose “Environmental Compensation.”
• Court’s Holding:
  • Restitutionary Power: PCBs have the power to impose “Restitutionary Damages” (to restore the environment) and require Bank Guarantees as a preventive measure.
  • Limitation: However, they cannot impose civil penalties (which is a judicial function) without specific statutory backing. Compensation must be for actual or imminent damage, not just for technical violations.

Competition Act

For a CBI Public Prosecutor, the relevance is highly predictable. The CBI investigates economic crimes, corruption, and tender scams. Therefore, the exam will focus on the intersection of Competition Law and Criminal/Economic Fraud (e.g., Bid Rigging and Cartels).

Highly Relevant Sections: Competition Act, 2002 (Predicted)

Section	Topic	Why Relevant for CBI APP (Prediction)
Section 2	Definitions	(c) Cartel: Crucial because cartels involve “conspiracy” (CBI territory). (h) Enterprise: Who can be prosecuted? (u) Service: Broad definition including banking/insurance.
Section 3	Anti-Competitive Agreements	MOST CRITICAL. specifically Section 3(3)(d) “Bid Rigging”. CBI investigates tender fraud; this section defines the civil/regulatory side of that fraud.
Section 4	Abuse of Dominant Position	Focus on Predatory Pricing (selling below cost) and Denial of Market Access. This is the core “offence” of the Act.
Section 16	Director General (DG)	The DG is the “Investigating Officer” of the CCI. CBI officers are often deputed as DG. Understanding this role is vital.
Section 19	Inquiry by Commission	How an investigation starts. Can CCI take Suo Motu cognizance? (Yes). Can a Central Govt reference start it? (Yes).
Section 26	Procedure for Inquiry	Procedural Gold. The step-by-step process: CCI forms prima facie opinion $\rightarrow$ Directs DG to investigate $\rightarrow$ DG submits report $\rightarrow$ Hearing.
Section 27	Orders/Penalties	Punishment Section. Penalty is up to 10% of Turnover (Global Turnover after 2023 Amendment). For Cartels: 3 times of profit or 10% turnover (whichever is higher).
Section 41	Powers of DG	The DG has powers of a Civil Court (Summoning, taking evidence on oath) during investigation. Similar to CVC Act Section 11.
Section 42	Contravention of Orders	The “Contempt” provision. Failure to obey CCI orders leads to a fine of ₹1 Lakh/day or Imprisonment up to 3 years (via Magistrate).
Section 46	Lesser Penalty	“Leniency Programme”. Similar to “Approver” (Section 306 CrPC/356 BNSS). If a cartel member confesses, penalty is reduced.
Section 48	Contravention by Companies	Standard “Vicarious Liability” clause. Directors/Managers are liable if they were in charge.
Section 53A	Appellate Tribunal	Appeals lie to NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal). Note: Old COMPAT was merged into NCLAT.

---

Top 3 “Must-Read” Concepts for 2025

1. Bid Rigging (Collusive Bidding):
   • Section 3(3)(d): Agreements that effectively eliminate competition for bids.
   • Why: CBI investigates corruption in government tenders. Bid rigging is where Corruption Act meets Competition Act.
2. Cartels & Leniency (Section 46):
   • Concept: A member of a cartel breaks the silence to get a lesser penalty.
   • Why: This mirrors the “Pardon to Approver” process in criminal law, making it a favorite topic for prosecutor exams.
3. Jurisdiction (Civil Court vs CCI):
   • Section 61: Civil Courts have NO jurisdiction to entertain suits on matters that CCI is empowered to determine.

Judgements:

Based on the landmark legal developments of 2024 and 2025, here is a comprehensive list of highly relevant Supreme Court judgments and NCLAT/CCI orders related to the Competition Act, 2002.

These cases are critical because the 2025 CBI APP syllabus has added the Competition Act for the first time, and the examiner will likely focus on jurisdictional battles (CCI vs Sector Regulators), Big Tech regulation (Google/Meta), and PSU exemptions.

1. Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

• Topic: Abuse of Dominance vs. Commercial Success.
• Relevance: This is the most recent (Nov 2025) Supreme Court judgment clarifying the philosophy of competition law.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Success is not Abuse: The Supreme Court held that Competition Law is “not designed to humble successful enterprises” or punish companies just because they have a commanding market share.
  • Objective Justification: “Functional rebates” (discounts for hitting targets) are not discriminatory if they are open to all buyers on identical terms.
  • Impact: A major defense for dominant companies. Merely being big or offering target-based discounts is not illegal unless it causes “competitive injury” to downstream markets.

2. Coal India Ltd v. Competition Commission of India (2023-24)

• Topic: Jurisdiction over PSUs / Monopolies.
• Relevance: This case settled the debate on whether State Monopolies (PSUs) are exempt from the Competition Act.
• Court’s Holding:
  • No Sovereign Immunity: The Supreme Court rejected Coal India’s argument that it is exempt because it operates for “common good” under the Nationalization Act.
  • Enterprise Status: Even a PSU with a statutory monopoly is an “enterprise” under Section 2(h) and can be punished for abusing its dominant position (e.g., imposing unfair Fuel Supply Agreements).
  • Impact: Confirms that CBI/CCI can investigate PSUs for anti-competitive conduct.

3. WhatsApp LLC & Meta v. Competition Commission of India (2024-25 Litigation)

• Topic: Data Sharing & Abuse of Dominance (Big Tech).
• Relevance: A high-profile battle regarding user privacy and market power, culminating in a massive penalty in late 2024 and NCLAT appeal in 2025.
• CCI Order (Nov 2024): Imposed a ₹213.14 Crore penalty on Meta for the 2021 Privacy Policy update, which forced users to share data with Facebook/Instagram. Ruled it as an “unfair condition” under Section 4(2)(a)(i).
• NCLAT Ruling (2025): The Tribunal set aside the finding of abuse of dominance regarding the privacy policy itself but upheld the penalty on other grounds. It lifted the ban on data sharing for advertising, ruling that data integration is key to the digital ecosystem.
• Key Principle: Privacy violations can be a competition issue, but CCI cannot act as a “Data Protection Authority” to ban all data flows.

4. Google vs. Competition Commission of India (Android Case)

• Topic: Tying & Bundling (Section 4).
• Relevance: The Supreme Court admitted Google’s appeal in 2024-25, making the NCLAT’s earlier ruling the current operational law.
• Key Principle (NCLAT/CCI Stance):
  • Unfair Condition: Mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google Suite (GMS) on Android phones is an abuse of dominance.
  • Remedy: Google must allow users to uninstall pre-installed apps and choose their own search engine.
  • Settlement (2025): In a separate “Android TV” case, CCI accepted Google’s ₹20.24 Crore settlement offer, marking a shift towards “Settlements” under the new Section 48A (added by 2023 Amendment).

5. CCI v. Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

• Topic: Settlements & Quashing of Inquiry.
• Relevance: Discusses whether a CCI inquiry survives if the original informant settles the dispute.
• Court’s Holding: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, observing that since the parties had settled, the substratum of the dispute was lost. However, it kept the “question of law” open.
• Rule: Generally, CCI proceedings are in rem (for public interest), so a private settlement does not automatically stop an inquiry, but courts may close it if no public interest remains.

---

Summary of Key Legal Principles for 2025 Exam

Case Name	Relevant Section	Key Principle (The “Answer”)
Schott Glass India (2025)	Section 4	Dominance is not Abuse. Target-based discounts are legal if objectively justified and non-discriminatory.
Coal India Ltd (2023/24)	Section 2(h)	PSUs are not exempt. State monopolies must follow Competition Law; no sovereign immunity for commercial functions.
Meta/WhatsApp (2025)	Section 4	Privacy as Competition. Excessive data collection can be abuse, but CCI cannot impose blanket bans on data sharing if it kills the business model.
Google Android TV (2025)	Section 48A	Settlements. Companies can now settle inquiries by paying a reduced penalty without admitting guilt (New 2023 Amendment provision).
Bharti Airtel (Referenced)	Jurisdiction	Sector Regulator First. If a technical issue (like Telecom/Electricity) arises, the Sector Regulator (TRAI/CERC) decides first; CCI comes in only after that.

Companies Act

The focus for a CBI Prosecutor is strictly on Criminal Liability, Fraud, and Investigation Powers.

Tier 1: The “Fraud & Investigation” Core (Most Critical)

These sections are directly relevant to CBI/SFIO investigations and appeared as themes in the 2023 paper.

Section	Topic	Why Relevant (PYQ Reference)	Potential Question
Section 447	Punishment for Fraud	The “Murder” Section of Corporate Law. This is the core offence. Defines “Fraud” broadly. Punishment: Min 6 months, Max 10 years. Non-bailable.	1. What is the minimum imprisonment for fraud involving public interest? (3 Years). 2. Is the offence cognizable? (Yes).
Section 212	Investigation by SFIO	CBI Parallel. Defines the powers of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. Sub-section (6): Stringent bail conditions (Twin Conditions similar to PMLA). Sub-section (8): Power to Arrest.	1. Can an SFIO officer arrest a person? (Yes). 2. Are the bail conditions under Sec 212(6) mandatory? (Yes).
Section 217	Powers of Inspectors	Procedural Power. Inspectors have powers of a Civil Court (Summoning, Oath, Production of documents). Failure to cooperate is punishable.	1. Does an inspector have the power to examine a person on oath? (Yes).
Section 34	Criminal Liability for Misstatement in Prospectus	White Collar Crime. Directly deals with cheating the public via false prospectuses. Punishable under Sec 447.	1. If a director proves “immateriality” of the misstatement, are they liable? (No).
Section 448	False Statements	Perjury equivalent. Making false statements in any return/report/balance sheet is punishable as Fraud (Sec 447).	1. Is filing a false balance sheet punishable under Sec 447? (Yes, via Sec 448).

---

Tier 2: Management & Oppression (Seen in 2023 Paper)

The 2023 paper asked about “Oppression” and “Private Placement”.

Section	Topic	Why Relevant (PYQ Reference)	Potential Question
Section 241	Application for Relief (Oppression)	2023 Theme. Deals with “Oppression and Mismanagement”. Application to Tribunal (NCLT) when affairs are conducted prejudicial to public interest.	1. Who can file an application for oppression? (Members with 10% shareholding).
Section 42	Private Placement	2023 Theme. Strict rules on raising money privately. Violation leads to penalty of amount raised or ₹2 Crore (Whichever is lower).	1. Can cash be accepted for private placement? (No, banking channel only).
Section 166	Duties of Directors	Liability Basis. Breach of these duties often forms the basis of “Criminal Breach of Trust” charges in CBI cases.	1. Is a breach of Section 166 punishable? (Yes, fine up to ₹5 Lakh).
Section 2(60)	Officer in Default	Definition. Who goes to jail? Defines MD, WTD, CFO, etc., as the people liable for company offences.	1. Is a Non-Executive Director an “Officer in Default”? (Only if aware of contravention).

---

Tier 3: The “Corporate Veil” & Liability

Section	Topic	Why Relevant
Section 53-54	Prohibition on Discount Shares	Issuing shares at a discount is void (except sweat equity). Relevant for financial scams.
Section 73-76	Acceptance of Deposits	“Ponzi Scheme” regulation. Accepting deposits from public without compliance is a major fraud indicator.
Section 452	Wrongful Withholding of Property	Criminal offence for employees/officers withholding company property (laptops/cash) after termination.

Summary Strategy for Companies Act

1. Read Section 447 Definition verbatim: It includes “act”, “omission”, “concealment of fact” with intent to deceive.
2. SFIO Powers (Sec 212): Know that SFIO officers have arrest powers similar to ED officers.
3. Prospectus Fraud (Sec 34): This is the most common “cheating” offence in corporate law.

Judgements:

These cases are critical because they settle the law on Fraud (Section 447), Bail (Section 212), and Vicarious Liability, which are the core areas of CBI/SFIO investigations.

1. Sushant Muttreja v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (2025)

• Topic: No Bail for Section 447 Offence without Twin Conditions.
• Relevance: This is the most critical judgment for prosecutors opposing bail in corporate fraud cases.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Twin Conditions Mandatory: The Court (referencing Supreme Court principles) held that courts cannot grant bail for an offence under Section 447 (Punishment for Fraud) unless the “Twin Conditions” under Section 212(6) are satisfied.
  • The Conditions: (1) The Public Prosecutor must be given a chance to oppose, and (2) The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
  • Impact: It aligns the Companies Act bail rigors with the PMLA standard (Vijay Madanlal), making it extremely difficult for accused directors to get bail.

2. Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (January 2025)

• Topic: No Automatic Vicarious Liability of Directors.
• Relevance: A landmark judgment protecting non-executive and independent directors from criminal prosecution.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Separate Legal Entity: A company is distinct from its directors. A director cannot be held vicariously liable for the company’s offences unless the statute specifically provides for it or there is evidence of active involvement.
  • Specific Role Required: The complaint must explicitly state the specific role of the director in the alleged crime. Merely holding a designation (like Director) is not enough to frame charges.
  • Why Relevant: CBI often charges entire boards of directors. This judgment forces the agency to pin specific criminal intent on each individual.

3. Nita Puri v. Union of India (August 2025)

• Topic: SFIO Investigation Order (Section 212) must be Reasoned.
• Relevance: It tests the validity of the Central Government’s order to start an SFIO probe.
• Court’s Holding:
  • “Opinion” is Justiciable: The Central Government’s formation of “opinion” to order an SFIO investigation under Section 212(1)(c) is subject to judicial review.
  • Existence of Circumstances: The order must be based on relevant material (like a Registrar’s report or public interest). If the foundational facts (e.g., forensic audit findings) are non-existent or flawed, the investigation order can be quashed.
  • Impact: Empowers courts to strike down SFIO/CBI probes at the very threshold if the “reason to believe” is missing.

4. Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India (2024)

• Topic: Constitutional Validity of Personal Guarantor Insolvency.
• Relevance: While primarily an IBC case, it intersects with corporate fraud where directors give personal guarantees.
• Court’s Holding:
  • Validity Upheld: The SC upheld the constitutionality of Sections 95-100 of the IBC, allowing insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors (often promoters/directors) without an initial judicial adjudication.
  • Role of Resolution Professional: The RP acts as a facilitator, not a judge. The principles of natural justice are read into the process at appropriate stages.

5. Rahul Virendra Modi v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (December 2025 Context)

• Topic: Admissibility of SFIO Report.
• Relevance: Clarifies the evidentiary value of the investigation report.
• Court’s Holding (NCLAT/HC Context):
  • Deemed Admissible: An SFIO report filed under Section 212(14A) is admissible evidence for initiating proceedings against directors and Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) for disgorgement of assets.
  • Impact: The report is not just an “opinion” but statutory evidence that can trigger freezing of assets even before the criminal trial concludes.

---

Summary of Key Legal Principles for 2025 Exam

Case Name	Relevant Section	Key Principle (The “Answer”)
Sushant Muttreja (2025)	Section 212(6)	Bail is barred unless the accused proves they are “not guilty” (Twin Conditions apply to Fraud).
Sanjay Dutt (2025)	General / Sec 447	No Vicarious Liability: Directors are not automatically liable for company crimes; specific role/intent must be proved.
Nita Puri (2025)	Section 212(1)	Investigation Order: Govt order for SFIO probe can be quashed if not based on tangible material/reasoned opinion.
Dilip Jiwrajka (2024)	Insolvency / Fraud	Personal Guarantors (Directors) can face insolvency proceedings directly; constitutional validity upheld.