DIV B

PRN – 1182190104

FIFTH YEAR BBA-LLB

TOPIC – PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT , 1988

The country of India has been plagued by corruption for thousands of years. It all starts with
employers that are driven to succeed and who see every assignment as an opportunity to make a
profit. Especially in developing countries like India and inside the institutions of the government,
corruption is often seen as a serious barrier to the advancement of the economy. Even the
educational system, which is supposed to instill kids with conduct that is exemplary in terms of
morality, is not immune to this kind of evil. As an example, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)
arrested two high-ranking officials from the Directorate of Higher Education for soliciting and
collecting a bribe of Rs. 20,000 from a Professor who was apprehended by the ACB's Thane
department in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The professor was captured by the ACB's Thane branch. One
of the first legislative measures that was taken with the intention of combating the issue of
corruption was the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of 1944. The purpose of this bill was to
make it illegal to sell or hide assets that were obtained by corrupt practises, bribery, or other acts
that are connected to these crimes. An organisation known as the Central Vigilance Commission was
established in 1964 with the primary intention of combating instances of corruption. To further
combat the problem of corruption, a large number of vigilance committees that are special to each
state were established.

With the intention of preventing corruption inside government institutions, as well as prosecuting
and penalising public officials who participate in corrupt practises, the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (POCA) was enacted with the purpose of consolidating and codifying all existing laws. When it
comes to the fight against this wicked force, it is a very effective weapon. In order for the anti-
corruption effort to be successful, it is essential that this legislation be effective. This law grants the
Central Government the jurisdiction to nominate judges to conduct investigations and adjudicate
cases relevant to activities that are penalised by the Act, as well as any conspiracies to do or attempt
to commit such offences as described by the Act. In addition, the Central Government has the right
to select judges to conduct investigations and adjudicate cases.

By analysing the development of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 and focusing on its most
important clauses, the author of this article intended to investigate the law. In addition to that, the
article will talk about court judgements that pertain to the Act as well as revisions that has been
made to the Act.

The process by which the act unfolded

The problem of bribery and corruption was first addressed by the Indian Penal Code of 1860, notably
in cases that included public officials working inside the Indian court system. In spite of this, it
became abundantly obvious in the 1940s that the provisions of the existing laws were insufficient to
meet the pressing requirements, and that there was a need to develop particular legislation in order
to combat bribery and corruption. As a direct consequence of this, the Prevention of Corruption Act
of 1947 was carried out with great success. There were two further amendments made to the 1947
Act, the first of which was via the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952, and the second of which
was through the Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act of 1964. Both of these amendments were
based on the suggestions that were made by the Santhanam Committee.
The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, which was passed into law on September 9, 1988, was
modelled after the 1947 Act, which served as the basis for the original law. The purpose was to
improve the effectiveness of anti-corruption law by broadening and strengthening the criteria. This
was done with the intention of making the whole commitment more attainable and eradicating
corruption in Indian government offices and public sector firms. India's Prevention of Corruption Act
has as its primary purpose the elimination of corrupt practises inside the many governmental
organisations and public sector organisations that are located throughout the country.

Not only is it necessary to determine the level of corruption that exists inside government
institutions, but it is also the responsibility of the government to take legal action and impose fines
on public employees who are participating in corrupt acts. Furthermore, the Act investigates those
who enabled criminals to commit crimes of bribery or corruption by providing them with assistance
and assistance.

Principal characteristics of the Act

The following is a list of some of the most important aspects of the Act:

 Through the inclusion of phrases such as "public duty" and "public servant" in the defining
clause of Section 2 of the Act, the scope of the definition has been expanded.
 The burden of evidence has been shifted from the prosecution to the defendant in
accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973.
 According to the criteria that have been set, the Act mandates that the investigation must be
carried out by a law enforcement official who has a rank that is at least equivalent to that of
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
 When the Act of 1988 was passed, the term of "public servant" was expanded to encompass
employees of the Central Government, union territories, nationalised banks, the University
Grants Commission (UGC), vice-chancellors, professors, and other persons.
 The Act makes it illegal to engage in corrupt activities such as bribery, misappropriation,
getting a monetary benefit, having assets that are disproportionate to income, and other
similar acts related to corruption.

Receiving presents, accepting incentives, and exerting influence on public officials are all
examples of activities that are considered to be corrupt.

Receiving satisfaction, exerting influence on public authorities, and taking gifts are all examples that
are outlined under many sections of the POCA, namely sections 7 through 11. Depending on the
severity of the consequences they carry, the Act classifies offences into several categories.
Furthermore, in order to give priority to the prevention of bribery and corruption, the legislation
that criminalises abetment, conspiracy, agreement, and attempt to commit these offences has been
put into effect. According to the various Sections, a variety of activities have been classified and
given permission to proceed.

Revisions of a considerable kind are now being made to these sections as a result of India's
obligations under the UNCAC requirements. An overview of the many parts that are now included in
the Prevention of Corruption Act is presented in the following paragraph. When it comes to illegal
transactions, the Act often stipulates that they must entail the participation of a public official and
the giving of unlawful remuneration in exchange for a favour, incentive, or reward from a public
worker.

In return for carrying out an official activity, public officials are granted the power to earn payment in
addition to their permissible salary, as stipulated by Section 7. The justification for Section 7 states
that monetary or monetary-equivalent types of fulfilment are not the only ways to experience
satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance that the public official makes such a
request in a clear and unequivocal manner. It is possible that just possessing the costly item does not
constitute legal liability in accordance with Section 7 of this Act if there is no evidence of this
request.

When a government employee engages in the act of engaging in illicit pleasure, whether for oneself
or on behalf of another, this behaviour is regarded to be banned. The word "gratification" has been
used rather often and may be used to a wide range of different things. It includes both occurrences
and activities inside its own framework. The word "gratification" refers to a wider range of
experiences than only those that are monetary or financial counterparts of gratification.

The acquisition of a reward by corrupt or illegal methods with the goal of influencing a public
employee is prohibited under Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The phrase "whoever
accepts or acquires, or agrees to accept, or seeks to obtain" is often used in this section. It has been
found that this phrase is relevant to workers, regardless of whether they are employed in the public
sector or the private sector.

The primary distinction between Sections 8 and 9 is in the permissibility of using "personal
influence" to acquire or forfeit favour under Section 8, whereas Section 9 permits the use of "corrupt
or criminal methods." It is worth noting that while Section 8 employs the word "corrupt," the
Prevention of Corruption Act does not provide a specific definition for it.

The government employee who receives a valuable item from a person who has a vested interest in
any business or transaction involving the public official in question may be subject to a penalty under
Section 11, which may be used to punish the employee. In accordance with the provisions of this
article, public servants are required to receive pay or incentives while performing their official tasks.
These benefits should mainly serve the interests of the employee or any other person.

According to Section 12, any individual who provides assistance in the commission of any of the
offences described in Sections 7 to Section 11 will be subject to imprisonment for a period of time
that is not less than three years but not more than seven years, in addition to an additional five
years of imprisonment. This is the case regardless of whether the offence was committed as a result
of the assistance.

Specifically, Section 13 of the Act allows for the legal prosecution of a repeat offender and, more
importantly, holds responsible a government employee who has committed the following
offences:

 The acquisition of any valued object or financial profit by dishonest or unlawful methods
 It is possible that he obtained the item by abusing his position as a government officer, or
  While performing the duties of a public worker, engaging in activities that involve the
acquisition of valuable assets or monetary benefits on behalf of another person, without
giving priority to the welfare of the general public.

In the absence of proof of demand, the act of seizing and confiscating cash from a person who is the
subject of an inquiry does not constitute a breach of either Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of this Act.
There was a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the matter of P. Satyanarayana Murthy
vs. The District Inspector of Police (2015) established that the act of employing corrupt or unlawful
methods or using one's position as a public worker to get any valued object or financial benefit
cannot be considered proven unless there is evidence of a specific request for illicit gratification. This
was established in the case of Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police.

Is it possible that this Act also applies to private individuals?

As was noted before, the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 is applicable to all individuals who are
engaged in the public sector. Additionally, it is also a reference, to a certain degree, to a certain set
of people who are not an integral part of the public sector. However, the Prevention of Corruption
Act of 1988 expands its authority to include some situations that involve private persons, despite the
fact that its primary focus is on addressing corruption committed by public officials.

In the event that a person seeks an unlawful advantage with the goal of exerting influence on a
government worker, Section 8 handles the situation. As a consequence of this, if a person who is not
employed by the government receives an illegal payment, and if the conditions that are given in
Section 8 of the Act are the same as those that are mentioned in Section 7, then that individual is
equally responsible for the breach. Not only does the Act demand monetary penalties, but it also
mandates jail durations that may range anywhere from six months to five years. In a similar vein, the
Act prohibits acts that are carried out by persons who utilise their personal influence over public
authorities in order to get pleasure from illegal activities.

Consequently, Section 8 includes all those who have a relationship to public workers who are
engaging in corrupt behaviour. The significance of this paragraph cannot be overstated when one
considers the dominant mentality throughout our country. There are a number of people who are
connected to, acquainted with, or friends of public officials who attempt to take use of their
connections in order to get unauthorised benefits in a variety of fields. To add insult to injury, this
measure makes it illegal for public officials to receive illegal benefits by hiding their genuine identity
behind the names of other people.

Is it against the law to reduce the severity of some offences?

The act of helping is deemed criminal under the Act if a public employee is suspected of committing
an offence under Sections 8 or 9 and assists and promotes the acts of other persons. This is the case
regardless of whether the crime was committed as a consequence of the encouragement or not.
Additionally, the accomplice will be subject to a monetary penalty in addition to a prison sentence
that can range anywhere from a minimum of six months to a maximum of five years respectively.

Because of this, the bettor will be subject to the same punishment. Through the imposition of an
equivalent punishment on the abettor, the Act serves to effectively discourage individuals from
aiding others in the commission of criminal acts. This is the case regardless of whether the offence
that was assisted in is actually carried out. It is a criminal offence to aid and abett those who are
identified as offenders in Sections 7 and 11, according to Section 12 of the law, which establishes
said criminal liability. In accordance with Section 7 of the legislation, it is a criminal offence to take
any type of compensation, other than the approved money, in return for carrying out an official
activity.

According to Section 11, it is a criminal offence for a public official to accept valuable items without
being compensated by the individual who is involved in the process or transaction that the public
worker is carrying out.

Inquiries that are authorised to be carried out by individuals

An investigation into the offence is necessary in the criminal justice system. Typically, the police are
responsible for conducting the investigation. Their primary duty is to gather evidence and try to
discover the true perpetrators of the crime. Due to this rationale, the police have been bestowed
with immense power. Nevertheless, law enforcement officials sometimes abuse their extensive
authority. Given that this pertains to the management and oversight conducted by public officials, it
is essential to thoroughly scrutinise these authorities. Consequently, not all police officials has the
authority to carry out investigations. Only officers of a certain rank has the authority to carry out an
inquiry.

Section 17 of the Act pertains to those who are granted authorization under the Act to conduct
inquiries. The individuals listed below have been granted authorization:

 A person who holds the position of Inspector of Police or a higher level in the Delhi Special
Police Establishment (CBI).
 An official holding the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or higher in major
metropolitan cities like as Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta.
 An officer holding the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above is authorised in
other locations.

An inquiry or arrest cannot be carried out by any official without the issuance of an order by a
Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of First Class. Moreover, as mentioned before, he has the
power to apprehend the defendant without requiring a warrant from a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
Magistrate of First Class. According to this approach, as per the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act of 1988, not all members of the police force have the authority to investigate claims
of corruption. Only police authorities with proper authorization are allowed to carry out
investigations.

Consequently, a proficient framework has been devised to establish an effective equilibrium

As per Section 17A of the Amendment Act 2018, it is prohibited to investigate any suspected
offence, including any advice or decision made by a public worker while performing their official
duties. In order to carry out such an inquiry, the following authorizations are necessary:

 The Central Government must provide approval for any offences related to Union affairs.
 Offences that impact the operation of state business need authorization from the state
government.

Nevertheless, in cases when an immediate arrest occurs and the offender admits to the commission
of a crime, there is no need for such authorization.

The role of the individual providing the bribe and the presumption of guilt

As per Section 20 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), any expensive item or luxury item discovered
in the hands of a person who is being investigated was obtained for the reasons specified in Section
7 of the Act. This is a presumption that may be disproven, and the person being investigated would
be responsible for proving that the valuable item or reward was not obtained via a breach of the Act.
Consequently, in the absence of any evidence to refute the assumption, an individual who is being
investigated would be deemed culpable, as was the ruling in the instance of M. The case of Narsinga
Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State occurred in 2001.

Section 24 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) provides the bribe provider with immunity, ensuring
that the bribe giver's confession does not make them liable to legal punishment. The clause granting
impunity to bribe suppliers has been widely denounced as a significant shortcoming that goes
against international values.

The Act provides for the imposition of penalties for violations committed under its provisions.

Deriving enjoyment from activities that are not legally remunerated. (Section 7) Individuals who are
convicted will be subject to a 6-month imprisonment, with the possibility of an extension to a
maximum of 5 years. Additionally, a penalty will be enforced.

Engaging in illicit and fraudulent tactics to exert control over a government representative. (Section
8) The penalty for this offence is a minimum of three years of incarceration, and a maximum of
seven years. Additionally, a penalty will be enforced.

Deriving satisfaction from exerting personal influence on public employees. (Section 9) The
punishment is a minimum incarceration period of 6 months, with a maximum term of 5 years.
Additionally, a penalty will be enforced.

The public servant engaged in illicit conduct. (Section 13) The punishment is a minimum
incarceration period of one year, with a maximum term of seven years. Additionally, a penalty will
be enforced.
Sanctions or retribution as prescribed by the legislation

The imposition of punishment or consequence is an essential need of the criminal justice system.
Without repercussions or sanctions, achieving the objective of the law becomes difficult. Penalties
act as a deterrence to potential future offenders. The severity, magnitude, and length of the
punishment all impact the rehabilitation of the accused. The typical punishment for minor
infractions (as outlined in Sections 7 to 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988) is a jail
sentence ranging from three to seven years, in addition to a monetary penalty. Severe penalties are
imposed for more serious violations, such as the conduct carried out by the defendant under Section
13.

Section 13 outlines that criminal misbehaviour is subject to imprisonment ranging from a minimum
of four years to a maximum of 10 years, in addition to a fine. Persons who engage in the actions
outlined in Section 14, including the repeated conduct of crimes included in Sections 8, 9, and 12,
are subject to a jail sentence of five years, which may be increased to 10 years. Additionally, he will
be required to remit a monetary penalty determined by the court. The Act also prohibits and
penalises efforts to commit offences. Individuals who attempt to engage in a criminal act as
described in paragraph (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13 will be sentenced to a
minimum of two years in prison, which may be increased to a maximum of five years in jail together
with a monetary penalty.

Pursuant to the Act, the Court is obligated to take into account the worth or monetary stake
associated with the object or property that is the focus of the committed offence. Previously, the
Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 only permitted a short incarceration period, which proved
insufficient in combating the perniciousness of corruption. The punishment was later expanded by
the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013. The expansion occurred due to the increasing public outcry
in response to the widespread corruption. In this domain, civil society has lately played a significant
role by galvanising a strong public sentiment against the pervasive issue of corruption. The
enactment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was a direct consequence of this understanding,
as well as the government's legal obligation to fulfil the provisions of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child.

The procedure for scrutinising and litigating dishonest public officials.

The three primary entities involved in the examination, inquiry, and litigation of corruption matters
are the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the state
Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Ministry of Finance's Directorate of Enforcement and the Financial
Intelligence Unit are responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of money laundering
committed by public officials.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and state Anti-Corruption Bureaus (ACBs) conduct
investigations into allegations of corruption in accordance with the Prevention of Corruption Act of
1988 and the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is responsible for
investigating crimes that occur inside the federal government and Union Territories. On the other
hand, the Anti-Corruption Bureaus (ACBs) of each state are tasked with investigating crimes that
occur within their respective states. States has the jurisdiction to refer matters to the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI).
The CVC is a legally mandated organisation responsible for investigating corruption inside
government agencies. The responsibility for it lies with the CBI. The CVC has the capacity to direct
issues to the designated Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the appropriate department or the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). While the CVC or CVO may suggest disciplinary measures for a
government employee, the final decision to impose such measures on a public worker lies with the
department authorities.

An investigative agency may only commence a prosecution with the prior permission of the national
or state government. The prosecution process is conducted in the courts by government-appointed
prosecutors.

Special Judges, appointed by the national or state governments under the Prevention of Corruption
Act of 1988, preside over all cases.

Special judges are designated.

The appointment of specialised judges under the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act is an essential
element in guaranteeing the effective resolution of corruption cases. The legislation acknowledges
the need for expeditious adjudication of corruption allegations and establishes specialised courts or
designates certain judges to preside over such matters. The authority to designate Special Judges is
shown in Section 3 of the Act. The passage states that the Central Government or the State
Government has the authority to appoint special Judges through an official notification in the Official
Gazette. These Judges are appointed to handle specific areas or cases as specified in the notification.
They are responsible for trying offences punishable under the Act, as well as any conspiracy,
attempt, or abetment related to these offences.

Amendments to the legislation

The 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act was recently modified without any further modifications,
leading to the Act's limited effectiveness. Given the lack of success of this Act, the implementation of
a new Act became imperative. Consequently, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (referred to as
the "Amendment Act") has been enacted. The majority of the modifications seek to enhance the
Act's existing provisions while expanding the range of offences covered.

Here are the main amendments to the Act:

1. The word "prescribed" pertains to rules that may be established by the Central Government in
accordance with the Act. Therefore, we expect the implementation of the following regulations:
mandates for organisations and businesses to establish internal policies and procedures that prohibit
their workers from offering improper benefits to government officials, as well as guidelines for
prosecuting a public servant under the Act.

2. After this modification, "undue advantage" is defined as any kind of inducement that is not a
permitted payment. Likewise, the term "gratification" encompasses all types of non-economic
monetary rewards.

3. In this amended Act, "Legal remuneration" is defined as any kind of compensation that a public
worker is authorised to receive by the relevant governing body.
Section 4(4) of the Act removes the need for courts to conclude trials for violations relating to the
Act within a two-year period. If the trials cannot be completed within this timeframe, the judges
must officially acknowledge the necessity for an extension of time. The study may now be prolonged
at six-month intervals, with a maximum duration of four years.

Section 8 has been amended to specify the consequences for those who aid in the payment of a
bribe or attempt to engage in corrupt activities with a government official. According to the
Amendment Act, engaging in actions under duress is not considered illegal if the individual who was
forced to participate in them reports the incident to the police or an investigative agency within a
week after paying a bribe.

Section 9 now explicitly addresses business entities and their affiliated individuals. The word
"persons affiliated with the commercial organisation" is inclusive enough to embrace both workers
and suppliers. However, it is important to note that the term "commercial organisation" is defined to
encompass all types of corporate entities.

7. The punishment section in this conduct, Section 10, now specifies specific periods of
imprisonment and fines for business organisation directors, officials in default, or individuals with
influence over the organisation who have agreed to engage in corrupt conduct that violates the
criteria of the Act.

When Sections 10 and 9 are altered simultaneously, it is crucial to bear in mind that the revised
legislation seems to impose penalties on both commercial entities for breaching the Act, in the form
of fines, and on the responsible officials of these entities, who may face criminal culpability under
Section 10.

9. The Amendment Act has restricted the circumstances in which a public employee may be
punished for alleged criminal misconduct, therefore affecting public servant corruption legislation.
Section 13 of the Act has been revised to specifically address cases of excessive assets. The revised
section now considers solely the abuse of property and unjust enrichment as grounds for
misbehaviour. Section 13 formerly included a broad inclination to participate in corrupt behaviour or
request bribes as a basis for criminal crime.

10. The Amendment Act seems to impose further obstacles in initiating legal proceedings against
government personnel. In order to initiate legal proceedings against a public employee under
Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the Act, it is necessary to first seek a sanction from a governing body
that has the power to terminate their employment, as stipulated in the change introduced in Section
19.Furthermore, the investigating authority, such as a police officer, must submit a permission
request. Otherwise, the court cannot determine that an infraction has occurred until further
complaints are satisfied.

Judicial rulings

The case of Parkash Singh Badal & al. against State of Punjab et al. occurred in 2006.

In the case of Parkash Singh Badal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors, (2006), the Supreme Court
decreed that if a government employee receives remuneration for persuading another government
employee to either carry out or abstain from carrying out any official duty, they would be liable
under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court
determined that fulfilment of Sections 8 and 9 might manifest in many forms, indicating that its
implementation was extensive. In this instance, the Court examined the correlation between
offences outlined in Sections 8 and 9, and Section 13(1)(d) on the other hand.

The case of Subash Parbat Sonvane vs Gujarat State in 2002.

Section 13(1)(d), similar to Section 7, has been the focus of extensive legal disputes. In the case of
Subash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that for someone to be
convicted under Section 13(1)(d), there must be evidence that the individual being investigated, who
is a public servant, acquired something of value or financial benefit either for themselves or
someone else by using their position in a dishonest or illegal manner.

In Conclusion of Research

Consequently, the malevolent presence of corruption has detrimentally impacted the progress of
both people and civilization. Humanity's insatiable desire has been the catalyst for the perpetuation
of evil throughout history. Human beings are enticed towards wickedness due to the financial
benefits they get from unethical actions. This legislation might play a crucial role in establishing a
robust framework to combat corruption. The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 is a crucial
legislation aimed at combating corruption. Nevertheless, the enactment of a law by itself cannot
achieve victory in the battle against corruption; it is the behaviour and actions of our lawmakers that
will provide us with an advantage in fighting this widespread problem.

It is important to acknowledge that nothing in the world is perfect, and this Act is not exempt from
that. In addition, if deemed essential, it is imperative to authorise suitable changes. However, the
effectiveness and efficiency of the investigating authorities are equally crucial in this matter.
Following the latest revisions, the Act is now being criticised by prominent legal experts. However, it
is crucial to prevent such criticism and for lawmakers to diligently find and address any loopholes in
the laws.