What is Corruption?

• Corruption’ is derived from the Latin word “corrupts” meaning

“corrupted”.

• Dishonest or Deceitful behavior on account of the persons.

• Possessing power: government officials or other managers who

misues their public position.

• It includes either giving or accepting inappropriate gifts and bribes,

under-table payments, money laundering, and black money,
tampering elections, and cheating the investors.
Evolution of the Law:

• Indian Penal Code was brought into force from 01.01.1862 though it
received assent of Governor General of India on 06.10.1860.

• Indian Penal Code Chapter IX deals with all offences by or relating to

Public Servants. This chapter does not deal with misconduct and
abuse of power by Public servants.

• Section 161 to Section 165 of IPC dealt with offences relating to

corruption committed by Public Servants.
• The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, of 1944 was one of the earliest pieces
of law to manage the field of corruption. It was designed to prevent the disposal or
concealment of property obtained by corruption, bribery, or other related offences.

• A Special Act i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came into existence on
11.03.1947 to make more effective provision for the prevention of bribery and
corruption.

• By enacting the Special Act, in addition to IPC provisions (Sections 161 to 165),
Criminal Misconduct was made an offence as per Section 5 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947.
• The 1947 Act was later amended twice, first by the Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 1952 and then by the Anti-Corruption Laws
(Amendment) Act of 1964, both of which were based on the
recommendations of the Santhanam Committee.

• Subsequently, the PC Act, 1947 was expanded in 1988 to clearly define

all terms including Public Servant and making the definitions of various
offences very clear. This was notified as Act No.49 of 1988 Dated 9th
September,1988. This repealed the provisions of IPC Sections 161 to
Section 165-A and old PC Act 1947.
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

1.Objectives:

• Prevention of Corruption: The primary objective of the act is to prevent corruption among public servants, including government officials,
members of law enforcement agencies, and individuals employed in public offices. It aims to create a deterrent against corrupt
practices by imposing stringent penalties on those found guilty.

• Punishment for Corruption: The act seeks to punish individuals involved in corrupt activities, including the acceptance of bribes, illegal
gratification, and abuse of official position for personal gain.

• Promotion of Transparency: It aims to promote transparency and accountability in government and public administration by
criminalizing corrupt practices that undermine the principles of integrity and honesty.

• Protection of Whistleblowers: The act includes provisions to protect whistleblowers who report corruption. It encourages individuals to
come forward with information about corrupt practices without fear of retaliation.
SALIENT FEATURES
• Corruption – Barrier to advancement; done in developing nations and by government agencies.
• The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of 1944 – one of the earliest pieces of law to manage the field of corruption. It
was designed to prevent the disposal or concealment of property obtained by corruption, bribery, or other related offences.
• In 1964, a Central Vigilance Commission was established to specifically deal with cases of corruption, and many state-
specific vigilance commissions were also established to address the issue of corruption.
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was established.
• The PCA was established to consolidate all existing laws and combat corruption in government agencies
• To prosecute and punish public workers who engage in corrupt acts. It is a powerful tool for combating this evil.
• The central government has the authority under this act to appoint judges to investigate and try cases when the offences
punishable under the act are committed or where a conspiracy to conduct or an attempt to commit the offences defined under
the act is made.
KEY FEATURES OF ACT
• Preventing Corruption – The act aims to prevent corrupt practices by establishing a legal
framework; Criminalised bribery, abuse of public office and illicit enrichment. Jurisdiction extends
beyond Indian borders.
• Promoting Transparency and Accountability – The act promotes transparency and accountability
in public administration by requiring public servants to disclose their assets, liabilities and financial
interests.
• Deterrence and Punishment – The act aims to deter individuals from engaging in corrupt practices
by imposing strict penalties, which includes both the imprisonment and fine, on which found guilty
of corruption practice.
• Investigation and Prosecuting Corruption Cases - The act provides for the investigation and
prosecution of corruption cases (gathering evidences, conducting trials and ensuring fair and
expeditious legal process)
• Asset Recovery – The act includes provisions for the identification, seizure and confiscation of the
proceeds of corruption, aiming to deter individuals from benefiting from their corrupt acts
• Preventive Measures – The act emphasizes the need for preventive measures to combat corruption,
including establishing vigilance commissions, promoting awareness and educating public servants
and citizens about the detrimental effects of the corruption.
PUNISHMENT OR PENALTY UNDER THE ACT
OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT PUNISHMENT UNDER THE ACT
• Taking gratification other than legal • Imprisonment for 6 months, extendable up to
remuneration. (Section 7) 5 years + fine
• Taking gratification to influence a public • Imprisonment for not less than three years,
servant (Section 8) extend to seven years + fine
• Act of criminal misconduct by the public • Imprisonment for not less than 1 year,
servant (Section 13) expandable up to 7 years + fine
Public Duty: Sec 2 (b)

The act defines "public duty" as a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public, or the community at large has an interest. This
definition is significant because it helps determine whether a particular action or omission falls within the scope of the act.

Public Servant: Sec 2 (c)

"Public Servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be:
1.Government Employees: Anyone who works for the government and is compensated, either with a salary or fees/commissions, for carrying
out public duties.
2.Local Authority Employees: People employed by local government bodies.
3.Employees of Government-Related Organizations: Individuals working in organizations established by government laws or controlled or
financially aided by the government, including government-owned companies.
4.Judges and Legal Authorities: Judges and those authorized by law to make legal decisions, such as arbitrators or individuals appointed by
courts.
5.Election Officials: People responsible for tasks like maintaining voter rolls and conducting elections.
6.Duty-Oriented Officeholders: Those holding positions requiring them to perform public duties.
7.Cooperative Society Leaders: Presidents, secretaries, or office-bearers of registered co-operative societies involved in agriculture, industry,
trade, or banking that receive government financial aid.
8.Education and Examination Personnel: Individuals involved in universities, including professors, teachers, or employees, and anyone
providing services for examinations on behalf of universities or public authorities.

9.Employees of Assisted Institutions: Office-bearers or employees of educational, scientific, social, cultural, or other institutions that receive
financial support from the government.

• M.L.A. /M.P. is a public servant

In Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa (8 1993 Crl. LoJ.3604

.• Minister is a public servant.

In the case of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India(AIR1979 SC 898)

• Ex-public Servant can be prosecuted under P.C Act,1988

In the case of The Calcutta High Court in Manmal v. State of WestBengal (AIR 1974 Crl.L.J. 92 (Cal)
Evolving Ambit of the Concept of “Public Servant”
under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Definition of ‘Public Servant”- significant in two aspects:
i. it is treated as the operating part of the legislation and the provisions
of the Act is applicable only when the person booked under the
prevention of corruption act is coming under the definition of public
servant given in the Act.
ii. person booked under prevention of corruption Act comes within the
ambit of the expression ‘public servant’ then he is entitled to enjoy the
protection given under section 19 (Previous Sanction Necessary for
Prosecution) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Can we say the persons who are in the employment of the government are
Public Servant?
• State of modern world is a welfare State and it has to perform a number of
activities to serve the number of agencies or instrumentalities.
• Broader definition needed: 1988 Act provides the same.
 Evolution of the term “Public Servant”:
• During I and II World War:
- Corruption was rampant among public servants
- Confined to the bureaucracy: they get variety of opportunities to deal with financial and connected matters in
the form of contracts licenses, grants etc.
- Provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, found to be adequate
• 1947 Act:
- Enacted to prevent bribery and corruption (Preamble)
- Found Inadequate to curb corruption
- Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 defined ’public servant’ as:
“For the purpose of this Act, ‘public servant’ means a ‘public servant’ as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal
Code.”
- Definition of the expression public servant as envisaged under section 21 IPC- contains 12 categories of persons
expressly as public servants.
- Judge is a public servant, every juryman, a panchayath member are specifically stated as public servants.
 - Though certain categories of persons were included in the definition, it
excluded some important functionaries from the purview of the Act.
- Controversy- whether an MLA or an MP is public servant? Whether
Professor or Vice Chancellor are in purview of ‘public servant’?
• 1962 Committee Report:
- Chaired by Sri K Santhanam
- Found Serious Drawbacks and No. of Changes were proposed
- Definition of “public” servant was recommended to be widened by
amending clauses 3,9 and 12 of section 21 of IPC to include Ministers,
employees of PSUs, etc.
- But the Committee had not recommended including “M.L.A" within the
said definition.
• 1988 Act:
- Enacted based on Santhanam Committee’s recommendation
- Expanded the definition of “public Servant
- L.K Advani v. CBI [1997 Cri LJ 2559 (Delhi)]: Objects and Reasons behind
the enactment of 1988 Act was to make corruption laws more effective
by extending the scope and ambit of the definition of “public servant”
and to bring within its sweep each and every person who held an office
by virtue of which he was required to perform any “public duty”.

• Section 2 (b): “public duty” means a duty in the discharge of which the
State, the public or the community at large has an interest. [Not defined
in 1947 Act]
 Difference
Aspect Section 21 of IPC Section 2(c) of PCA, 1988

Scope Specific categories: Military officers, judges, court Broader: Includes anyone in government
officers, jury members, etc. service or pay

Roles Covered - Commissioned Officers in the Military, Naval, or Air - Any person in government service or
Force pay - Duties related to government
- Judges and Adjudicatory Functionaries - Officers of a property, surveys, assessments,
Court of Justice - Jury Members, Assessors, and contracts, revenue processes, and
Panchayat Members document maintenance
- Arbitrators and Referees
- Officers Empowered to Place or Keep Persons in
Confinement
- Government Officers with Specific Duties - Officers
Handling Government Property or Financial Matters

Emphasis Specific roles within justice system, military, and Involvement in financial matters and
administration government service

Specificity More specific and detailed Broader and inclusive

Definition: Section 2(c)
Section 2(c)- “public servant” means—
i. any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees
or commission for the performance of any public duty;
ii. any person in the service or pay of a local authority;
iii. any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or
State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a
Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
iv. any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a
member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;
v. any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the
administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such
court;
vi. any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or
report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;
vii. any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish,
maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;
viii. any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform
any public duty;
ix. any person who is the president, secretary or other office bearer of a registered co-
operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having
received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any
corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or
body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as
defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
x. any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board,
by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such
Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on
behalf of such Commission or Board;
xi. any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader,
lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any
University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any
other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations;
xii. any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific,
social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or
having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any
State Government, or local or other public authority.
• Explanation 1.—Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public
servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.
• Explanation 2.—Wherever the words “public servant” occur, they shall be
understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public
servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation.
 • Before 1988 Act:
MLA or  RS Nayak v. AR Antulay [AIR 1984 SC 684]:
- Constitution Bench of Hon’ble SC traced the history of clause (12) of section 21
MP: Public of IPC.

Servant? -
-
When IPC was enacted- No legislative Assemblies
Clause 12 was added by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958- Not included
MLA
- Examined Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Act 1964 to find out whether it
contains any provision in its language or any expression.
- Noticed Clause (12)(a) of Section 21: Public servant is every person who is:
o in the service of the Government; or
o in the pay of the government; or
o remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public
duty by the Government
- The Court Observed: “If an MLA is not in the pay of the Government in the
sense of Executive Government or is not remunerated by fees for
performance of any public duty by the Executive Government, certainly he
would not be comprehended in the expression ‘public servant’ within the
meaning of the expression in clause (12)(a).”
- Held- MLA not a Public Servant
• After 1988 Act:
- Yes, under Section 2 (c) (viii) ‘public servant’ is defined as
“any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform
any public duty”
- Section 2 (b) defines 'public duty’ as
“a duty in discharge of which the state, the public or the community at large has an
interest.”

 P V Narasimha Rao v. State [AIR 1998 SC 2120]

• It was held that a Members of Parliament holds an “office” and by virtue of such office he is
required or authorised to perform duties and such duties are in the nature of public duties.
• A member of Parliament, therefore, full within the combat of section 2(c)(viii).
• Held- MP is a public servant for the purpose of the 1988 Act.

 The PV Narasimha Rao’s judgment has been consistently followed and the proposition is
reiterated in Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI [2011 7 SCC 141].
Private Bankers: Public Servant?
- PCA: focused on people who comes under the purview of public
Servant.
- Private sector corruption- Not under the purview of PCA, 1988.
 CBI v. Ramesh Gelli [(2016) 3 SCC 788]
• Facts:
- Mr Ramesh Gelli (Chairman & Managing Director) and Mr
Sridhar Subasri (Executive Director) of the Global Trust Bank
were alleged to have sanctioned loans without following the
banking norms, which resulted in the creation of a large
quantum of non-performing assets, thereby compromising the
interests of the bank’s depositors.
- CBI Charged them under PCA Act and various other laws.
• Issue:
- whether the officers of a private bank can be said to be public
servants for the purposes of their prosecution in respect of
offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or
not?”
 Continued..

- Bombay High Court: Not ‘public servant’ under PCA Act.

- Supreme Court: The objectives of the PCA clearly specified that the statute was to ‘make the anti-
corruption law more effective and widen its coverage.’ After conjointly reading the provisions of the
PCA with Section 46A of the BRA, the court harmoniously constructed them to determine in the
affirmative that officers of a private banking company would fall under the definition of a public
servant as defined in the PCA.
- Supreme Court observed that under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, ‘a person who holds an office
by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, is a public servant’.
- ‘Public duty’ under the PC Act is a ‘duty in the discharge of which the State, the public, or the
community at large has an interest’.
- Impact: Private Bankers are now under purview of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• 1988 Act has widened the ambit of definition of ‘Public Servant’
to combat corruption.
• Through landmark court rulings and legislative amendments,
the judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and
broadening the scope of this term .
• “The purpose under the PC Act was to shift focus from those
who are traditionally called public officials, to those individuals
who perform public duties”
- State of Gujarat v. Mansukbhai Kanjibhai Shah [2020
SCC OnLine SC 412]
• In a rapidly changing socio-economic landscape, the definition of
'public servant' continues to evolve to address emerging
challenges and ensure accountability across diverse sectors.
 APPOINTING SPECIAL JUDGES

• The Central and the State Governments are empowered to appoint Special Judges by placing a
notification in the Official Gazette.

• Indira Narayan Ganguly v. State of West Bengal19,(1997) any offence under this Act to be tried by
special judges.

• J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1912)- discretion of the Government is not
unfettered or unguided.
 POWER OF SPECIAL JUDGES

• A Special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being
committed to him for trial

• Tender pardon to obtain evidence.(grant pardon to an accused person in exchange for their
cooperation in providing evidence or testimony against other individuals involved in the offense).

• CrPC provisions will apply to proceedings before special judge.

• • A Special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under this Act, shall exercise all
the powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2013 (Amendment) BILL:

• The primary law that regulates corruption related offences by public servants is the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 1988 Act covers offences like that of taking a
bribe, criminal misconduct (including amassing of disproportionate assets) by a public
servant, and mandates prior government sanction for prosecution.

• Over the years, expert bodies such as the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission
and the Law Commission of India examined the 1988 Act and suggested changes to
it. This included inclusion of the offence of bribe giving, limiting prior sanction for
prosecution to certain cases, and the procedure for attachment of property of public
servants accused of corruption. Subsequently, in 2008, a Bill to amend the 1988 Act
was introduced in Parliament. The Bill sought to extend the requirement of prior
sanction for prosecution to former public servants, and provide for attachment of
property. However, it lapsed with the dissolution of the 14th Lok Sabha.
• In 2011, India ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC),
2005 and agreed to bring its domestic laws in line with the UNCAC. The UNCAC
covers giving and taking a bribe, illicit enrichment and possession of disproportionate
assets by a public servant as offences, addresses bribery of foreign public officials,
and bribery in the private sector.

• In August 2013, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 was introduced
in Parliament to amend the 1988 Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Bill states that it was introduced to bring the 1988 Act in line with the UNCAC. The
Standing Committee submitted its report on the Bill in February 2014. Subsequently,
in November 2014, the central government referred certain amendments to the 2013
Bill to the Law Commission of India which submitted its report in February 2015. In
November 2015, the government circulated amendments to the 2013 Bill, which were
then referred to a Select Committee of Rajya Sabha.
Key Highlights of the 2018 Amendment Act

1. Definition of Undue Advantage

Undue Advantage has been defined to mean any gratification other than legal remuneration, not being gratifications
limited to monetary terms. “Gratification” is not limited to pecuniary gratifications of estimated money. The definition
has been expanded to include non – monetary considerations as well.

2. Bribery to Public Servants (The anti-corruption law accords punishment to both the bribe giver as well as the
taker)

Earlier, there were no specific provisions except as abetment but under the Amendment giving a bribe is included as
a crime punishable by a 7-year prison term except when one is forced to give a bribe provided it was not coerced by
the bribe-taker. However, to protect persons who give bribe under coercion, the Act has provided that "the person so
compelled" would have to report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigative agency within seven
days.
For the bribe takers, the punishment to a minimum of three years of imprisonment, which may extend to seven
years, besides fine.
3. Bribes by Commercial Organization:

The Amended Act has now defined commercial organization. A commercial organization means not only a
company or a partnership firm incorporated within India but also a body corporate or a partnership firm incorporated
outside India carrying on business in India. The Amended Act provides that if any person associated with a
commercial organization gives any undue advantage with an intention to
- Obtain/retain any business or;
- Obtain/retain an advantage in the conduct of business
then such a commercial organization shall be guilty in terms of s. 9 of the Act. Also, the Amendment act mandates the
Central Government to lay down guidelines to ensure that no commercial organization bribes any public servant.

4. Criminal misconduct (Honest bankers, bureaucrats can breathe easy)

The criminal misconduct provision is intended to protect public servants from being wrongly prosecuted for
official decisions. Under it, bankers cannot be pulled under the corruption law unless they have accumulated assets
more than what they could have obtained with their steady income, or have misappropriated assets entrusted to them.
Criminal misconduct will now include only two offences:

i. Misappropriating of property entrusted to the Public Servant.

ii. Intentionally enriching oneself illicitly.
The Amendment comes at a time when many current and former bankers are facing intense scrutiny for their
lending decisions which have resulted in NPAs. Bankers have argued for a long time that they should not be
prosecuted for lending decisions they made honestly.

5. Forfeiture of property:

This section was introduced for the Special Court to attach and confiscate property, which was earlier done
under a 1944 ordinance through civil courts. Forfeiture of property under section 18 A is believed to help avoid a
fresh procedure to confiscate property obtained through corruption.
The idea being that persons should not be allowed to profit from corrupt acts, making it necessary for law
enforcement to have powers to recover all the tainted assets one procured through PC Act offences.
The provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 shall, as far as may be, apply to the attachment,
administration of attached property and execution of order of attachment or confiscation of money or property
procured by means of an offence under this Act.
6. Pre-investigation approval:

Section 17A has been introduced. This section grants another level of protection as it requires prior approval of
an appropriate authority to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been
committed by a current public servant or a former public servant.

Now, a police officer will need prior approval of relevant authority while pursuing cases against all public servants.
However, the same does not apply when the accused is caught red-handed.

This provisions will ensure that investigating agencies will initiate investigation (and possibly arrest as part thereof)
only if they have strong proof indicating either fraud or quid pro quo by a banker.

Honest bank officials who had taken decisions in good faith and without quid pro quo will be protected from loss of
liberty by arrest. It further mandates the concerned authority to convey its decision within 3 months, which period may
be extended by 1 month subject to such extension being supported by reasons recorded in writing.
7) Prior Sanction required for Prosecution of Former Public Servants

The PCA required prior sanction of the appropriate government for prosecution of serving public
officials. The Amendment Act extends this protection of requirement of prior approval to any enquiry, inquiry or
investigation prior to prosecution. Accordingly, no police officer shall initiate any enquiry, inquiry or investigation
against a current/former public servant for an alleged offence (where the alleged offence relates to
recommendations made or decisions taken in the course of his official duties), without the prior approval of employer
government or in any other case, by authority competent to remove him/her from such office (concerned
authority).The decision on sanction request is to be made under three months which may be extended by a month.
Even after, if the competent authority does not does not approve sanction, it is considered as a deemed sanction.
(Decided in Vijay Ram Mohan v/s CBI. 2023(SCC) 329.)

8. Time limit for completion of trial

The initial Act no where specified the time limit within which the trial should be completed. However, the
amendment now prescribes that the trial shall be completed by a special judge within a period of two years from the
date of filing. If not, reasons for the delay must be recorded, for every six months of extension of time obtained. Total
period for completion of trial not to exceed 4 years.
Key Features Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2013

Definition of a  Undue advantage which is any gratification other than

 Any reward other than a salary.
‘bribe’ legal remuneration.

Covers any of the following acts: Covers any of the following acts:
 Accepting or attempting to obtain any reward, other  Attempting to obtain or obtaining, or accepting an undue
Acts that qualify as
than a salary. advantage;
taking a bribe by a
 Accepting a reward to favour or disfavour anyone.  Attempting to obtain or obtaining, or accepting an undue
public servant
 Accepting a reward from another person to exercise advantage, i) with the intention of, or ii) as a reward for, or iii)
personal influence over a public servant. before or after, the improper performance of a public function.

Exceptions to  If a person does not perform a public function dishonestly,

 No provision.
taking a bribe it would not qualify as taking a bribe.
  Offering or giving an undue advantage to another person,
intending to: i) induce, or ii) reward, the public official to
 No specific provision. perform his public duty improperly; or
 Covered under the provision of abetment.  Offering an undue advantage to a public official, knowing
Giving a bribe to a
 If a bribe giver makes a statement in court that he that such acceptance would qualify as performing his public
public servant
gave a bribe it would not be used to prosecute him for duty improperly;
the offence of abetment.  A person would not have committed the offence of bribe
giving if he did so, after informing a law enforcement authority,
to assist in its investigation of a public servant.
 Offering a reward for obtaining or retaining any advantage
in business.
Giving a bribe by a  Central government to prescribe guidelines for adequate
commercial  No specific provision. procedures for commercial organisations to prevent bribing of
organisation to a  Covered under the provision of abetment. public servants.
public servant  If a commercial organisation is held guilty of giving a bribe,
and it is proved that it was committed with the consent of the
director, manager, secretary etc., they will be punished.
 Covers a public servant abetting an offence related
to influencing another public servant.  Covers abetment by any person for all offences;
Abetment  Covers any person abetting offences like: i) taking a  Excludes the offence of attempting to misappropriate
bribe and ii) obtaining a valuable thing from a person property (covered under criminal misconduct).
engaged with in a business transaction.
 Covers 6 types of offences:
 Fraudulent misappropriation of property in the Covers 2 types of offences:
control of a public servant.  Fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to a
 Possession of monetary resources or property public servant.
Criminal disproportionate to known sources of income.  Intentional enrichment by illicit means during the period of
Misconduct by a  Habitually taking a bribe or valuable thing for free. office. This would involve amassing resources
public servant  Obtaining a valuable thing or reward illegally. disproportionate to one’s known sources of income.
 Abuse of position to obtain a valuable thing or [It shall be presumed that the person intentionally enriched
monetary reward. himself.]
 Obtaining valuable thing or monetary reward without
public interest.
 Habitually taking a reward to either influence a  The committing of any offence under the Act by a person
Habitual Offender
public servant or abet in the taking of a bribe. who has previously been convicted.

 The guilt of the accused would be presumed for the

 The guilt of the accused would be presumed only for the
Presumption of guilt following 3 offences: i) taking a bribe, ii) being a
offence of taking a bribe.
habitual offender and iii) for abetting an offence.
Trivial rewards  Such a presumption of guilt would not apply if the
 The provision related to trivial rewards has been omitted.
reward obtained is considered ‘trivial’ by the court.
  The provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance,
Attachment and 1944 would apply.
 Not provided in the Act.
forfeiture of property  In place of a District Judge (as in the Ordinance), cases will
be referred to a Special Judge.

 Before a police officer conducts any investigation into an

offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant,
Prior approval for prior approval of Lokpal/lokayukta to be taken.
 Not provided in the Act.
investigation  Such approval would not be necessary in certain cases
which involves the arrest of a person on the spot on the charge
of taking a bribe, either for himself or another.

Prior sanction for  The prior sanction from the appropriate authority is  Extends the requirement of prior sanction to former public
prosecution required for prosecution of public servants. servants, for any act committed in office.

 Trial by special judge to be completed within 2 years.

Time period for trial  If not, reasons for the delay must be recorded, for every six
 No time period mentioned.
of cases months of extension of time obtained.
 Total period for completion of trial not to exceed 4 years.
Penalties*:
 Habitual  Imprisonment of five years-10
offender years and a fine.
 Criminal  Imprisonment of four years-10
 Same as the 1988 Act, for all offences.
Misconduct years and a fine.
 Taking/givi  Imprisonment of three years-seven
ng a bribe, years and a fine.
abetment
Loopholes in the Amendment Act:

Despite a reasonable attempt to bring about positive changes, the Amended Act still has certain
inconsistencies/ loop holes:

• For instance, the requirement to obtain appropriate sanction / pre investigation approval before initiating
prosecution for public servants tends to tighten the shield available to officers accused of corruption.

• Inherent delays in the criminal justice system

• There is no law to deal with corruption in the private sector.

• Hostile Witnesses.
References:

Links/Websites:
1) An Overview of Prevention of Corruption Act (lawbhoomi.com)
2) The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 (prsindia.org)
3) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – iPleaders
4) Legislative History, Object And Scope Of The The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988, Definitions Of Public
Servant And Public Duty (legalserviceindia.com)
5) 2018 Amendment To Prevention Of Corruption Act Has No Retrospective Effect: Delhi High Court (livelaw.in)
6) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (linkedin.com)
7) Can't interpret section 17A in manner which defeats the objective of PC Act: SC to TDP chief Chandrababu
Naidu (indiatimes.com)
8) Prevention of corruption (Amendment) Act 2018: Boon or a Bane? - Legal Vidhiya.
Case Laws:
1) In Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa (8 1993 Crl. LoJ.3604
2) M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India(AIR1979 SC 898)
3) Calcutta High Court in Manmal v. State of WestBengal (AIR 1974 Crl.L.J. 92 (Cal)
4) Indira Narayan Ganguly v. State of West Bengal19,(1997)
5) J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1912)
6) Vijay Ram Mohan v/s CBI. 2023(SCC) 329.)
 PARKASH SINGH BADAL AND ANR VS STATE OF
PUNJAB AND ORS, (2006)
• One Public Servant received compensation for persuading another Public Servant to perform or
refrain from performing any official act.
• Supreme Court stated that in such cases the Public servant would be subject to the provisions of
sections 8 and 9 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988.
• In the same case, the supreme court determined that satisfaction might be of any form for sections
8 and 9, indicating that the scope of their applicability was broad. In this instance, the court was
investigating the relationship between offences under sections 8 and 9 of the Act.
SUBASH PARBAT SONVANE VS STATE OF GUJARAT
(2002)

• Section 13 of the Act has been the focus of extensive litigation.

• The supreme court in the case held that to be found guilty under section 13, there must be proof
that the subject of the investigation, i.e., the person under investigation, obtained something
valuable or financially advantageous for himself or another person through dishonest or illegal
means, by abusing his position as a public servant, or by obtaining something valuable or
financially advantageous for another person without any consideration of the public interest.
 BHUPINDER SINGH SIKKA VS CBI (2011)
• Section 2(c) of The PCA – defines Public Servant
• The Delhi High Court in this case found that an employee of an insurance company established
by an act of parliament was inherently a public servant and that no evidence was necessary in this
regard.
• And if such person is found guilty of any unfair practice, then he will be liable and prosecuted
under this act.
OFFENCES UNDER PC
ACT
CLASIFACTION OF CORRUPTION

Bribery and its Abettors

Abuse of Official Position

Possession of disproportionate assets.

BRIBERY AND ITS ABETTORS
• The act defines bribery as giving or promising to give an undue advantage to another
person or persons with the intention to induce a public servant to perform a public duty
improperly or dishonestly. The Reward which is given to such public servant for the
dishonesty or improper performance of public duty is bribe.
• The act defines an abettor as a any person who gives or promises to give an undue
advantage to a public servant. The abettor's purpose is to induce the public servant to do a
public duty improperly or dishonestly.
ABUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION
• Abuse means misuse i.e. using his position for something for which it is not intended.
• The abuse of official position is wider than the offence of bribery.
• The abuse may be by corrupt or illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage or any
valuable thing for himself or for any other person.
• Causing wrongful loss to the Govt to obtain pecuniary advantage for a third party falls
under abuse of Power.
• Issue of contracts to the bidders at higher rates would also fall under abuse of powers.
Narbahadur Bhandari Vs State of sikkim 2003 Cr.LJ 2799.
POSSESSION OF DISPROPORTIONATE
ASSETS
• A situation where someone's net economic assets are significantly higher than what they should have
after accounting for their previous assets and legal income sources.
• Large numbers of public servants indulge in corrupt activities on regular basis, it would be difficult to catch
them while accepting the bribe by laying a trap and the money collected by them are converted into
assets. Hence, to detect such officer, disproportionate asset was made as an offence in PC Act.
• In K. Veera Swami v/s Union of India (1991) 3 SCC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if one
possesses assets beyond his legitimate means, then the assets can be considered as gain through ill-
manner.
• In P. Nallamal v/s State 1999 Cr LJ 3967, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the abettor can also be
prosecuted for aiding to acquire disproportionate assets by the public servant. Every public servant is
legally bound to inform the receipt of income otherwise the same cannot be treated as income.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 7 of PC Act: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
• Any Person inducing Public Servants for improper or dishonest performance of Public Duty
or forbear performance of accepting an undue advantage from any person. Even proper
performance of Public Duty with such inducement is an offence.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years
but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
• 2018 Amendment: Public Servant inducing another Public Servant is also an offence.
• Payment of a sum to a public servant whether paid before or after the act would
constitute as bribe (1970 Cr LJ 793) Mohinder Lal Bagai V/s Delhi Administration.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 7A of PC Act: Any Person obtaining or attempting to obtain or attempting to obtain
from another person for himself or for another person any undue advantage as a motive or
reward for inducing a Public Servant for improper or dishonest performance is a offence.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years
but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 8 of PC Act: Any Person who promises to give an undue advantage to induce a
Public Servant for dishonest or improper performance of Public Duty.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or fine
or both.
• Provided that if the person is compelled to give such undue advantage and he has
reported the matter to Law Enforcement Authorities within 7days of giving such advantage.
Then this section will not apply to them.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 9 of PC Act: When a Commercial Organisation bribes a public servant the
Commercial Organization is punished with fine.
• Bribing a Public Servant by a Commercial Organisation:
1. Any person associated with the organisation who promises or gives undue advantage to
public servant in order to retain or obtain the business will be punished under sec. 8 of
this act.
2. The organisation can indicate that they have take proper sets to prevent its associated
persons to undertake such steps and if they still do then the Organisation is not
responsible.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 10 of PC Act: Person in Charge of the Commercial Organisation which is guilty for
offence under sec.9 of this act, if such offences are found to be committed with the consent
of any director, partner, any CXO level position, secretary or any other officer shall be guilty
of the offence.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years
but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 11 of PC Act: Public Servant obtaining undue advantage without any consideration
from person who has induced the public servant for dishonest or improper performance of
the public duty. Using the influence of superiors or any other connection will also be
treated as a offence.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months
but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 12 of PC Act: Any person who abets any offence under this Act, shall be punishable with a jail term
which may extend from three year to seven year. This is irrespective of whether that offence is committed
in consequence of that abetment.
• Sec. 13 of PC Act: Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant is said to be committed when:
1. If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or converts that property for his own use which is
entrusted to him.
2. If he enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
• All misappropriation of entrusted funds or acquiring Disproportionate Assets by Public Servants will be
treated as Criminal Misconduct.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than four years but which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 14 of PC Act: Any person whoever commits an offence under this act after being
convicted for the 1st time.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
• Sec. 15 of PC Act: Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred in sec. 13 (1) is
offence.
• shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to thee years and shall
also be liable to fine.
PROVISION OF PC ACT
• Sec. 16 of PC Act: In matters while imposing fine under sec. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13(2), 14, 15,
the court shall consider the amount of property acquired by the accused committing the
offence.
• If he is convicted for Disproportionate assets case then the court shall consider the
pecuniary resources or property which the accused is not able to show the accounts of.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION
• No court shall take cognizance of an offence under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of PC Act
except with prior sanction.
• Sanction not required for the offences under sec 8, 9, 12 and 14 of PC Act.
• In case of Group-A officers, sanction is accorded by the Central Govt/State Govt.
• In case of other Public Sector undertakings and Non Group-A officers, sanction is
accorded by the competent authority.
• High court cannot give direction to the sanctioning authority to grant sanction. (Mansukh
Lal Vithal Das Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat 1997 Crl.L.J 4059 SC).
• Sanction for retired employees is also necessary.