What is Corruption?Corruption means some illegal gratification received for doing some work for somebody else. It is a corrupt practiCe in any field- moral, social and economic. In India, corruption has become a way of life. The devil of corruption, in fact, has entered every sphere of national activity.Corruption can occur on different scales. Corruption thus inhibits economic growth and affects business operations, employment and investments. There also does not exist an unambiguous answer as to how deal with corruption. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988An Act to provide for the establishment of a Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime, to make provision for the prevention of corruption and confer power on the Directorate to investigate suspected cases of corruption and economic crime and matters connected or incidental thereto.·      The Act covers the offence of giving a bribe to a public servant under abetment. ·      The Act redefines criminal misconduct to only cover misappropriation of property and possession of disproportionate assets.·      The Act modifies the definitions and penalties for offences related to taking a bribe, being a habitual offender and abetting an offence.·      Powers and procedures for the attachment and forfeiture of property of public servants accused of corruption.Major change is introduced after the introduction of Prevention of Corruption(Amendment) Act, 2018.Earlier, only the officer involved in such corrupt practices is held guilty and is charged for the offence of corruption and by virtue of section 24 of the said act, the person who offers gratitude to a public officer is discharged from liability. The purpose of that provision was to come up with such corrupt practices on part of public servants and offices and to lift their veil. If the person who offers the bribe would also be punished would also be punished and liability is also imposed on such person then it would become very difficult to highlight such corrupt practices.But because of this provision, it became very easy for an individual to offer gratitude to a public officer and to draw undue advantage from such office. It was also very difficult to find the difference between bribe giving and consensual bribery.Therefore under the new law, a person who offers some gratitude or bribe to a public officer to get some advantage from the post, office or position such public officer is holding would also be punished. The sole purpose of the new provision is to deter the people to take advantage from such offices and public servants and to reduce the rate of such corrupt practices.For the purpose of this, changes were introduced in many provisions because of which Section 24 is now omitted, there is introduction of new Section 7-A and the provisions contained under Section 8&9 are now amended in order to create liability on part of a person or corporate organization who offers gratitude to public servants.SECTION 4: CASES TRAILABLE BY SPECIAL JUDGES1. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only.2. Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. 3. When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, be charged at the same trial.4. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.MEANING:·      Section 4 is referred to as the cases triable by special judges described that any offence committed under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be trial by special judge.·      There can be special judge as per the requirement of the cases in the area for trial.EXPLANATION:·      There must be conduct of an offence mentioned under sub-section (1) of section 3 of this act.·      Cases of that offence shall be triable by special judges.·      Central government or state government has the power to appoint the special judges as mentioned under sub-section (1) of section 3 of this act.·      Special judge can try the offence either mentioned under section 3 or any other offence of code of criminal procedure, 1973.·      As special judge think fit can hold the trial.CASE LAWS: STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. J.P SHARMA.[1]It was held that if there is more than one appointment of special judge in an area then they shall have jurisdiction for the trial of the case as mentioned under sub-section (2) of section 4.DEWAN CHAND V. STATE.[2]It was observed that there was no appointment of special judge for particular case but the appointment was there for particular area.AMENDMENT:·      There is a time extension to hold a trial under sub-section (4) of section 4 which has now extended by 6 months at a time for upto maximum of 4 years.·      If the special judge has not completed the trial within 2 years then by writing the reason he has to submit the record and then the period of 6 months shall be extended upto the total limit of maximum 4 years. The practical application of this section can be easily applicable and the language is easily understandable and clearly describes the meaning of this section.SECTION 5: PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF SPECIAL JUDGE1. A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.2. A special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be deemed to have been tendered under Section 307 of that Code.3. Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge; and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Court of the special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a special Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor.4. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (3), the provisions of Sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions, a special Judge shall be deemed to be a Magistrate. 5. A special Judge may pass upon any person convicted by him any sentence authorised by law for the punishment of the offence of which such person is convicted. 6. 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.MEANING:·      This section explains about the procedure and powers of the special judge mentioned under code of criminal procedure, 1973.·      Special judge has to follow the rules prescribed under the code of criminal procedure and has the power to take cognizance of the offence. EXPLANATION:·      Special judge has to follow the procedure given under code of criminal procedure, 1973 for the trial of accused person.·      While taking the knowledge of the offence or evidence special judge shall has the power to tender the pardon for the purpose of sub-section (1) to (5) under section 308 of code of criminal procedure.·      Tender pardon needs evidence.·      Under the code of criminal procedure, sub-section (1) and (2) of section 308, the court of special judge shall be consider as a court of session and the person who is conducting the prosecution before the special judge shall be considered as a public prosecutor.·      Any proceeding done under section 326 and 475 of code of criminal procedure before the special judge shall be considered as a magistrate.·      Special judge has the power to give punishment to the accused according to the offence committed.·      Special judge can exercise all the powers and functions of the district judge.CASE LAW:A.R. ANTULAY V. R.S. NAYAK.[3]This was a landmark judgement where special judge for some other purpose must fill the slot of magistrate or Court of Session. The court of special judge is the court of original criminal jurisdiction and the magistrate or the Court of Session enjoys the power and function of court of original criminal jurisdiction.This section is made for the special judge that contains the procedure and power which special judge has to follow it. As the language is not easily understood and practical application of this section need a lot of knowledge. Special judge has to follow the rules prescribed under the law. [1] 1988 Cri LJ 858.[2] 1976 Cri LJ 1823.[3] AIR 1984 SC 718.

CORUPTION ACT +2 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2878 Views 4 years ago

SECTION 6: POWER TO TRY SUMMARILY1.   Where a special Judge tries any offence specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3, alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the contravention of any special order referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or of an order referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of that section, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act or Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the special Judge shall try the offence in a summary way, and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial.Provided that, in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special Judge to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year: Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the special Judge that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Special Judge shall, after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to hear or re-hear the case in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the said Code for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. 2.   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily under this section in which the Special Judge passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month, and of fine not exceeding two thousand rupees whether or not any order under Section 452 of the said Code is made in addition to such sentence, but an appeal shall lie whether any sentence in excess of the aforesaid limits is passed by the special Judge. MEANING:·      This section talks about that special judge has the power to trial the summary of the offence committed under this act.·      Special judge has the power to give punishment of imprisonment not exceeding one year.EXPLANATION:·      When any offence committed by public servant under sub-section (1) of section 3, special judge has the power try the offence in summary way.·      Special judge shall pass the sentence of imprisonment of one year.·      Further he has the power to exceed the imprisonment of one year for any other reason prescribed by the code of criminal procedure.·      Special judge shall hear both the parties, record the order, examined or re-hear the party.·      Under this section, the convicted person cannot file an appeal if special judge under summary trial passes sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month and fine not exceeding two thousand rupees.·      When order passed by special judge is excess of the limit then convicted person can file an appeal.In the present section, there are various clarifications which are to be made, as it involves lot of knowledge about the law and the provisions. The language used in this section is vague and cannot be interpreted easily. As the main motive of this section is to make aware to the special judge about the power to try the offence in summary way and shall pass the sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year.Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.“1Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”Meaning:This sections says that if a public servant or a person expecting to be a public servant, accepts, obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any gratification, other than the legal remuneration, by using his official authority as a tool which may include an act, favour/disfavour or any service, is said to committed an offence. He shall be punished with imprisonment of duration 6 months to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation:Some words or phrases are carry an ambiguous meaning which require an explanation. These are as follows:a.“Expecting to be a public servant”The act too doesn’t provide a straightforward meaning of this phrase. Theexplanation given for the section 7 says that if a person who is ‘NOT’ expecting to be a public servant receives gratification by deceiving others with a belief that he has the official authority, shall be charged with ‘cheating’ and not under this offence.b. “Gratification”The word gratification also includes various quantitative and qualitative pleasures and it is not restricted to monetary pleasures.c. “Legal Remunerations”It includes all kinds of remuneration to which a public servant is permitted to and which he can lawfully demand.d."A motive or reward for doing"It simply means that the public servant should have a motive of obtaining gratification for doing any act. It should come in his expression.e.   The section also mentions a specific situation for this offence. It says that if a person incorrectly makes some other person believes that the former has got the thing done for the latter because of the former’s influence with the government, and thus receives gratification as a result of this is said to have committed corruption.Essentials:Thus, from our understanding of this section, we can form out the essentials of this section:- The person should be a public servant or expecting to be a public servant. - He should have received gratification which should be other than his legal remuneration- The gratification so received should be out of an act, service or favour which is part of his official duty.- The offence should be committed under his official authority granted by the government.Amendments:The word ‘gratification’ has been replaced in the newly amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 by the word ‘Undue Advantage’. It increases the scope of the of the act as the word undue advantage in itself includes the gratification and other various kind of benefits which the public servant may accept or obtain.This amendment has attempted to reduce the loopholes in the act. Further, the sentence or punishment has also been increased in the new amendment. The minimum duration of imprisonment is now 3 years and maximum is 7 years.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2794 Views 4 years ago

Section 8: Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servantThe section reads as:“Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”Meaning:This sections means that if a person takes any kind of gratification from any person in return for influencing a public servant for doing a specific act, favour or service towards any person is punishable under law with an imprisonment of 6 months and 5 years and might also be liable to fine.Explanation:This section makes liable the person who accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any gratification but the person who is giving the bribe or gratification. In this sense, this act limits the reach of the law. Second important thing is that the person who is taking the gratification is himself not doing the act, favour or service, instead, he is influencing another public servant to do that. The presence of corrupt or illegal means to influence is must and this is what differentiates it from section 9 of the POC Act, 1988.Section 9: Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servantThe section says, “Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority,corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any publicservant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a termwhich shall be not less than six months but which may extend. to five years and shall also beliable to fine.”Meaning: This section says that if a person accepts or obtains any kind of gratification from any person for inducing any public servant, by exercising his personal influence, to do or to forbear any official act, favour or service, in the exercise of his official functions, such person so taking the gratification is liable to be punished with fine and imprisonment up to 5 years. Explanation:The most considerate condition for the offence to be completed under section 9 is the person who is receiving the gratification should exercise his personal influence to induce the other public servant to act in a particular way. The presence of corrupt and illegal means as a condition is not present in this section. Also, like in section 8, this section also does not speak of public duty, it means that even if the State, the public or the community at large has no interest in the discharge of official function, Sections 8 and 9 would still be attracted.Amendments for section 8 and 9 combined:Section 7A has been introduced in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 to combine the previous sections 8 and 9.New Section 8 is primarily intended to make “bribe givers” liable for the offence of bribing public servants. The giver or recipient of the bribe (“undue advantage”) may be a non - public servant or a public servant. The provision is evidently to bust the nefarious racket of touts who corrupt public servants.The new section 9 pertain only to the offences done by business organisations and the fine is also limited only to fine. The section clearly defines the term ‘commercial organisation’ for this purpose. Section 9 (3) (c) defines the “person associated with the commercial organisation” and Explanation 1 to 3 thereof further enlarges the scope of the expression “person associated with suchorganisation”. While under Section 9(1) the “commercial organisation” is liable to fine only, the “person in charge of such organisation” is under Section 10, made liable to imprisonment for not less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years AND fine. Landmark cases:-  Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central Bureau of InvestigationIn the case, there were two accused charged with offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is one of the accused and his main grievance was that the co-accused was acquitted and the appellant’s conviction was upheld by the High Court. One of the essential observation made by the Apex Court in relation to charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was that in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of “demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant”.- In the recent case of Krishan Chander v State of Delhi the Supreme Court postulated on the essential factors for determining whether bribery, as contemplated under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the act, has been committed. The court held that in order to prove an offence under these sections, it is necessary to establish that the public servant both demanded and accepted the bribe.- Ravi Shankar Srivastava V. State of Rajasthan & others.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2786 Views 4 years ago

Section 10- Punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in section 8 or 9. - Whoever, being a public servant of offences defined in section 8 or 9 is committed, abets the offence, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment ,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.This act punishes a public servant for any act of abetment for offences mentioned in section 8 and 9 of Prevention of corruption act, 1988 and the punishment for such offences shall extend to five years with fine or with a minimum imprisonment for a six months term. The essential ingredients for application of this section are as follows:-·      The accused must be a public servant.·      An abetment for offences to sec 8 or 9 was committed.·      The person must have abetted for someone whom he knew to be interested or related to the person concerned.This section of POCA,1988 is corresponding to the repealed section 164 of IPC, which prescribes punishment for abetment for offences defined in section 162 and 163 of IPC with an imprisonment of either term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.Therefore, the offence mentioned under Section 10 shall termed as cognizable, non bailable, non compoundable and triable by special judge. Section 11- Public Servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such Public Servant-Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself, of or any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is sub ordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.This section prohibits a public servant from taking any bribe indirectly, in the form of any presents, gifts, rewards etc whereas section 7 of the same act has already prohibited taking bribes directly. Thus this section prohibits and punishes a public servant for accepting any gift, present, reward without consideration. This section also invokes that, it is not necessary for the accused to be subordinate to the other public servant with respect to that official function with which that proceeding or business is connected.Interpretation of the terms in section 11·      ‘ Any valuable thing without consideration’- Anything which has some value in the eyes of a reasonable person shall be treated as a valuable thing under this section but it does not include things which are given and received out of hospitality such as garlands, fruits etc.·      ‘Subordinate’- Legislature by using this term, has expressed its intention to include those subordinates under the purview of the act, who has no connection with the functions with which the business or transaction is concerned. For instance, In case of R.G.Jacob v Republic of India[1], the appellant who was an assistant controller of imports, was convicted for an offence under Sec 165 of IPC which is now Sec 11 of POCA, 1988, where he as accepted two bags of cement and Rupees 50 from a person who was concerned in an appeal to the joint controller of imports and exports against an order rejecting his export application for an export permit, and thus has promised to use his influence to get the export permit. The court rejected the appellants contention that he had no connection with the issue of export permits as he was not a subordinate to the joint chief controller of imports and exports and also held that the word ‘subordinate’ used in sec 11 of POCA, 1988 would include administratively subordinate and not functionally subordinate and hence the offence was said to be committed, when a public servant accepts valuable things without consideration from a person concerned in the proceeding or business, irrespective of him being a subordinate or not.·      ‘Likely to be concerned’-This term may include such likelihood which may have influenced the donor in taking the fact into his calculation in offering the present. This may not be always obvious or apparent, whereas in case of officials and court peons, the present is more likely to be in the nature of extortion than on a voluntary payments for favors to come, which is treated as a punishable offence under this act.For sustaining a charge under this section, the following ingredients are to be established, which are as follows:-·      The accused must be a public servant at the time of commission of the offence,·      He must have accepted or agreed to accept or have attempted to obtain for himself or for someone else any valuable thing,·      He accepted the valuable thing from the owner for no consideration.The offence under this section is treated as cognizable, non bailable, non compoundable and triable by a special judge with a punishment which may extend to five years of imprisonment with fine or with a minimum of six months of imprisonment .Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is corresponding to the repealed section 165 of IPC, which states that a public servant or any other person subordinate to him agrees or obtains valuable thing without consideration, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than 6 months and not more than five years with fine.In Narendra Champaklai Trivedi v State of Gujarat[2]Case, where a public servant was accused for receiving bribe while exercising his duty, the court held that mere recovery of tainted amount is not an essential conditions for holding a person guilty for any offence under sec 7,11, and 13 of the POCA,1988 and thus it also included that there has to be evidence mentioned by the prosecution that the bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe and the acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification was an essential condition for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.A similar judgment was passed on State of Punjab v Madan Mohan Lal Verma[3] case were the court held that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish whether there was illegal offer for bribe and acceptance of the same and it shall be proved with relevant facts attached to it .The court also added that the facts related to the recovery of the tainted amount are also necessary because they are the essential ingredients for charging of crime against the Public Servant. [1] R.G.Jacob v Republic in India, AIR 1963 SC 550.[2] Narendra Champaklai Trivedi v State of Gujarat,(2012) 7 SCC 80.[3] State of Punjab v Madan Mohan Lal Varma, (2013) 14 SCC 153.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2713 Views 4 years ago

Section 12-Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or Section 11- Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 whether or not that the offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.Abetment for any offences defined in section 7 or section 11 are considered punishable under this section. In case of Bhagwan Singh v State of Rajasthan,where a question was arisen as to whether offering bribe is a punishable offence or not, the court held that abetment to commit an offence must be treated as a special offence and express provision shall be made for punishment for offences to abetment such as in cases of bribery etc. thus, the person offering a bribe shall be punished under this section with an imprisonment which may extend to five years or with a minimum imprisonment for six months.This section of POCA, 1988 is corresponding to the repealed section 165A of IPC, which reads that the offering of a bribe or a valuable thing to a public servant without adequate or no consideration is an offence by itself and not merely an offence to abetment.To establish a charge under this section, the prosecution must prove that:-·      The accused abetted the offence;·      The offence abetted was one laid down under section 7 or section 11 of POCA, 1988. However, it is not necessary that the offence abetted must actually has been committed.The difference between Section 7 and Section 11 of POCA, 1988 is that, under section 7, a Public Servant who receives illegal gratification is treated as a motive or reward for abusing his office, whereas under section 11, the question of motive or reward is immaterial, and therefore the acceptance of the valuable thing without adequate or no consideration from a person is forbidden because it is likely to influence the public servant to show official favors to the person giving such valuable things.In R.S.Nayak v A.R.Anthuly Case, a question was raised to grand special suction to the public servant who was accused of asking and accepting bribe, where the court held that for any provisions of Section 7, 11, 13and 5 of POCA, 1988, it is intended to keep that the public servant is free from corruption and thus ultimately ensures the purity in public life. In Adikando Satpathy v State, the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 165 A of IPC which is corresponding to Section 11 of PCA, 1988, where the court held that when a person is a public servant in the very office where the appointment of the person giving the bribe is made and takes the money in order to get the appointment made, there is no further question as to the charge of evidence indicating who was the other public servant with whom the service would be rendered. It is not necessary to show whether there was any other public servant who has to be approached. In such a case, the person who would be taking money from himself or from any other person in his office in order to do any official act or get it done, it is enough if it is shown that the money was paid to the public servant in a particular department in return for any act in his favor.Section 13Criminal misconduct by a public servant1.   A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.2.   Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Section 13 talks about public servants i.e. the people who are authorised to work for the state or local government. Any kind of act which is unacceptable in nature or is of improper behaviour is restricted from their side. Since it is Prevention of Corruption Act, this section emphasises on criminal misconduct which is, any act involving legal arena in it.It is further explained that when will the act be termed as criminal misconduct. If the person in picture accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any pleasure apart from the legal pay as in Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act from any other person, it will be termed as criminal misconduct. It does not matter whether the gratification is for himself or for any other person.If the person accepts or obtains or try to do, anything which has a value added to it provided that it should be obtained without a consideration or a consideration which he knowing to be inadequate. It should come from a person who should be known to be concerned with a business transaction taken place or to take place. It should also not be connected with the official functions or somehow connected to the service and without any interest from their side.If the person somehow converts a property for his own use which might have given to him by another person in faith or under his control as a public servant or any of these things be done by someone else on his order.If the person does an illegal or a corrupt act which leads to attaining of a monetary advantage to himself or any other person. Takes an undue advantage by abusing his position at public servant and obtaining a pecuniary advantage to self or other person. In the tenure of being a public servant obtains a pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing which does not have any link with public interest.Criminal misconduct will also account for the possession of any pecuniary resources, or property which is not in proportion to his known sources of income. The possession can be made by himself as well as other person on his behalf. The term known sources of income broadly means the lawful income with receipts.All these mentioned were the situations in which the act will be termed as criminal misconduct and the punishment for the same would be, imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but, which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2767 Views 4 years ago

Section 14Habitual committing of offence under sections 8, 9 and 12Whoever habitually commits- (a) an offence punishable under section 8 or section 9; or(b) an offence punishable under section 12, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term   which shall be not less than two years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to give an eye on Sections 8, 9 and 12Section 8 reads as Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant-‘Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.’Section 9 reads as Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant- ‘Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence, any public servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.’Section 12 reads as Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or 11-‘Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.’Basically Section 8 criminalises the obtaining of pleasure, gratification for himself or for any other person to influence a public servant. This goes against the law as a public servant has a duty to work for central or state government.Section 9 criminalises taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with a public servant. These people are not meant for having personal influential relationships with others during their office.If any person is held under Section 8 or 9 of this act, he or she will be punished under Section 12 of this act.Section 12, which stipulates the punishment for abetting the offences defined in Sections 7 and 11, criminalises the act of giving a bribe. These will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than two years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.Section 15Punishment for attemptWhoever attempts to commit an offence referred to in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If a public servant, with a bad intention, fraudulently converts a property for his own use or someone else’s use or any property entrusted to him as a public servant or allows any other person to do so and if he by corrupt or illegal means obtains a pecuniary advantage, misuse his position of public servant to obtain an advantage or while holding the office of public servant obtains a pecuniary advantage without any public interest, the person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.The sole idea was to bring all relevant provisions in a single Act. Finding that bribery and corruption among public servants had considerably increased during and after the Second World War and many unscrupulous officers had amassed huge wealth, and the existing provisions of the IPC and the CrPC were inadequate to tackle this problem, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was passed.In the Criminal Procedure Code, offences relating to public servants are not cognisable, but the 1947 Act made it obligatory for the court to make certain presumptions of guilt against the accused. The 1947 Act shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. The 1947 Act declared such corrupt acts offences as taking bribe, misappropriation, obtaining a pecuniary advantage, possessing assets dis-appropriate to income, and abusing official position. However, the authority for prosecution was vested only in the department authorities and not in the Central Bureau of Investiga­tion (CBI).The 1988 Act enlarged the scope of the term ‘public servant’ and in­cluded a large number of employees within its ambit. Besides the employees of the central government and the union territories, the em­ployees of public undertakings, nationalised banks, office-bearers of cooperative societies of the central and the state government receiving fi­nancial aid, employees of the University Grants Commission (UGC), vice-chancellors, professors, and scientists in institutions receiving finan­cial aid from the central or state governments or even from the local authorities have all been declared as public servants.E.Ganesan Vs. State by Inspector of Police - Court Judgmentthe income of the appellant during the check period from 09.12.1983 to 10.01.1992 was arrived at rs.13,07,697.25/-. The prosecution evidence itself discloses that mrs. kamala wife of the appellant was having income independently and she is also an income tax assesse. That apart, advance of rs.1000/- and rs.200/- per month as maintenance charge was paid by the tenant, which comes to rs.10,200/-. likewise total assets of the accused at the end of check period is rs.1,85,588.00/- and total assets kamala is rs.11,80,454.00/-. The evidence placed on record does not support the case of prosecution that the properties acquired by Mrskamala was benami of the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused.....prayer: criminal appeal filed under section 374 of criminal procedure code against the judgment of the learned additional special judge for cbi cases, Chennai made in c.c.no. 186 of 1997 dated 21.8.2002 convicting the appellant herein under section 13(1)(e) r/w section 13(2) of prevention of corruption act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay find of rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment. Tthe accused/appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.08.2002 rendered by the learned additional special judge for cbi cases, Chennai, in c.c.no.186 of 1997, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of prevention of corruption act.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2731 Views 4 years ago

Section 19: Previous sanction necessary for prosecution1)   No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction-:a)   In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;b)   in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a state and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that government;c)   in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.2)   Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.3)   Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-,a)   No finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;b)   no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;c)   no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.4)   In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.Explanation of the Section:The section obligates previous sanction necessary from the competent authority for prosecution of offences committed by public servants under the said Act. Previous sanction is mandatory only for prosecution and not for initiating investigation/inquiry. Also, it is restricted only to public servants. Retired servants with impeccable integrity and a fine track record of possession robust decision making abilities have suffered the brunt of lack of protection under the law. There have been instances too where unsustainable inquiries/investigations have been initiated against public servants- serving and post retirement on account of false complaints/allegations.Need and importance:The provision aims to balance two competing interests. One is the need to ensure that an honest public servant is not hounded in the performance of his or her duties by frivolous complaints. Landmark Judgements     I.         Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr[1] Facts- The appellant appealed before the SC for the reason that whether the special judge has the jurisdiction to give the decision on the case under Sec 19 of the prevention of corruption Act.Held- SC held that the law on the issue of sanction can be summarised to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty.   II.         Asst. Commissioner Vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd[2]Held- SC held that the grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. The grant of sanction, therefore being administrative acts the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise.III.         C.B.I v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,[3] Held- SC observed that the Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servant under frivolous prosecution. IV.         Abhay Singh Chautala Vs. C.B.I[4]Held- SC held that the High Court was absolutely right in relying on the decision in Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab to hold that the Appellants in both the appeals had abused entirely different office or offices that the one which they were holding on the date on which cognizance was taken and, therefore, there was no necessity of sanction under Sec 19 of the Act.Section 20: Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration1.   Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.2.   Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.3.   Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption reffered to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.Meaning and Explanation:Presumption under this clause is restricted to few sections and not applicable to the whole Act. The presumption is based on the offenses punishable under section 7 or section 11 of the act. Where the offence committed is punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or (b) of sub section (1) of section 13. It is proved that the accused who is a public servant has accepted or obtained or has agreed to obtain for himself or any other person any sort of gratification, it shall be presumed that the accused has accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or obtain such gratification or the valuable thing. The gratification will be a reward as mentioned under section 7 which may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate unless contrary to it is proved.When the accused is tried for the offence punishable under section 12 or clause (b) of section 14 and it is proved that any gratification or any valuable thing in the form of bribe or property has been offered, given or attempted to be given by the accused, it shall be presumed that he gave or offered or attempted to give the gratification. This may be as motive or reward under section 7 without consideration or the consideration which he knows it to be inadequate unless the contrary is proved.Landmark Judgements     I.         C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala[5]Held- The court held that it is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. [1] 2013X AD S.C. 386[2] 2003 132TAXMAN 165 SC[3] AIR 2014 SC 827 [4] 2011 (2) ACR 2252 SC[5] 2009 3 SCC 779

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2782 Views 4 years ago

Section 21: Accused person to be a competent witnessAny person charged with an offence punishable under this Act, shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial:Provided that-a.    He shall not be called as a witness except at his own request;b.   His failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial;c.    He shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of any offence other than the offence with which he is charged, or is of bad character, unless-               i.         The proof that he has committed or been convicted of such offence is admissible evidence to that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged, or             ii.         He has personally or by his pleader asked any question of any witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character, or has given evidence of his good character, or the nature or conduct of the defence is such as it involve imputations on the character of the prosecution or of any witness for the prosecution, or           iii.         He has given evidence against any other person charged with the same offence.Meaning and explanationAccording to this section, a person who is charged with the offence punishable under this Act is competent to give evidence on the charges put against him or any other person charged with him in same trial. He may give evidence on oath on disproof of charges. Provided- that he cannot be a witness except at his own request. The failure to give any evidence shall not be open to any comment by the prosecution or to give rise to any presumption against himself or any other person charged together for the offence in the same trial. He shall not be asked and if asked, it shall not be obligatory to him to answer any questions relating to other offences for which he has been convicted other than the offences which he has been charged is of bad character.Section 2222. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply subject to certain modifications The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall in their application to any proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act have effect as if,- (a) in sub-section (1) of section 243, for the words "The accused shall then be called upon", the words "The accused shall then be required to give in writing at once or within. such time as the Court may allow, a list of the persons (if any) whom he proposes to examine as his witnesses and of the documents (if any) on which he proposes to rely and he shall then be called upon" had been substituted; (b) in sub-section (2) of section 309, after the 'third proviso, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:- "Provided also that the proceeding shall not be adjourned or postponed merely on the ground that an application under section 397 has been made by a party to the proceeding."; (c) after sub-section (2) of section 317, the following sub-section had been inserted, namely:- "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination."; (d) in sub-section (1) of section 397, before the Explanation, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:- "Provided that where the powers under this section areexercised by a Court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the Court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings:- (a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for; or (b) if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies.". Purpose of the above provisionThe above provision defines the applicability of the provisions of code of criminal procedure, 1973 and how those provisions to be applied and followed in the cases of corruptions. It is made clear through the above provision that the procedural requirements mentioned in the provisions of Cr.P.C.1973 are to be fulfilled subject to certain modifications which are mentioned in the above Section.This is just an enabling provision which says that the guidelines of Cr.P.C.1973 are to be followed after the modification in such a manner that there would be no need to frame different procedure for applicability of this act.The above contention is supported by the following judgementsSri H. D. Kumarswamy Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.-Under section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. the provisions of Cr.P.C. 1973 are made applicable. subject to certain modifications.Provisions of Cr.P.C1973 to be followed in trying an accused personSri S.M. Krishna Son of Sri S.C. Mallaiah. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.-A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall fellow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

3177 Views 4 years ago

Section 23This section simply defines the particular in charge in relation to an offence committed under section 13(1) (a) of the Act.23. Particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under Section 13(1)(A).—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), when an accused is charged with an offence under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, it shall be sufficient to describe in the charge the property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section 219 of the said Code:Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.The above underlined part of the provision is the substitution introduced after the amendment of the provision in the year 2018-The change introduced in the above provision after the amendment of Prevention of Corruption Act is that earlier this provision used to define particulars in a charge in relation to an offence under section 13(1) (c). After the amendment, there are two changes introduced in the said provision.In section 23 of the principal Act,—(a) in the marginal heading, for the word, figures, brackets and letter “section 13 (1) (c)”, the word, figures, brackets and letter “section 13 (1) (A)” shall be substituted;(b) for the word, brackets and letter “clause (c)”, the word, brackets and letter“clause (a)” shall be substituted.Purpose of the AmendmentEarlier the act used to define particulars in a charge in relation to an offence committed under Section 13(1)(c), the amendment is done in order to widen the scope of the said provision and now it defines the particulars in a charge in relation to an offence committed under Section 13(1)(a).The provision contained under Section 13(1)(c) is now omitted which used to define the act of a public servant in case of his dishonest misappropriation of property entrusted to him under his control as such public servant.But now it defines the act of a public servant where he accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7.Section 2424. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under sections 7 to 11 or under section 13 or section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under section 12.Purpose of the above provision-The purpose of the above provision is to lift the veil of the corrupt officers and public servants who are indulged in such corrupt practices. It helps the one who are victim of such corrupt practices and who provided some monetary or non-monetary benefit to such public officers.If a person who had offered some gratification to any public officer would not be exempted under this provision then it would be very difficult to bring these matters in light and no one would be able to bring suit against such corrupt officers.The provision is not attracted to non-public servants-In the case of State of M.P. Vs. M.V.Narasimhan, it was held that, since the word 'person' is not defined in PC Act, applying Section 11 IPC, it is understood that 'public servant', bribe giver, cannot be understood as 'person' in terms of Sections 8 and 24 of PC Act. Therefore, the provision of PC Act is not attracted against the non-public servant.In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Singh, it was held that, the law relating to prevention of corruption was essentially made to deal with the public servants.Position after the introduction of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018After the amendment of the prevention of corruption act in the year 2018 which came into effect on 26th July, 2018, there are many changes introduced in the said act in order to fulfill the changing needs and to strengthen the law relating to corruption matters.Through this amendment, the above provision contained in section 24 of the prevention of Corruption Act is omitted. The main purpose of omitting the said provision which exempted the person who offers some gratification to a public officer from prosecution is to deter them so that they would think twice before offering bribe or gratitude to such public servant.Earlier it was very easy on part of a person to offer bribe or gratitude to public servant because in such cases only the public officer is prosecuted and there was no prosecution of the person who offers the same. But this new provision is introduced in order to have control over the acts where a person offers bribe. There was need of punishing the person involved in the activities of offering gratitude to public officers have advantage over others. The person offering bribe is also equally guilty as the one taking it.Amendment in other provision of the act as a consequenceIntroduction of Section 7-AThis provision defines punishment for the person who take undue advantage by unfair means from a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence.The new Section 7-A could be read as under7-A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence.—Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage of a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, 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.Amendment in section 8 & 9 of the ActAmendments are also introduced in Section 8 & 9 of the act which now defines liability and punishment for the person and organization involved in the activities of offering bribe to a public servants.Section 8 defines the punishment for a person who induce a public servant to perform his public duty improperly. Punishment for the same is imprisonment up to 7 years or fine or both. However, there are certain exceptions to the same which exempts a person where he offers the same under compulsion.Section 9 defines liability of a commercial organization involved in the act of bribing a public servant to obtain or retain business for such commercial organization or to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business for such commercial organization.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2722 Views 4 years ago

Section 25. Military, Naval and Air Force or other law not to be affected.(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction exercisable by, or the procedure applicable to, any court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), the Air Force Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), the Border Security Froce Act, 1968 (47 of 1968), the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (30 of 1978) and the National Security Guard Act, 1986 (47 of 1986).(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of any such law as is referred to in sub-section (1), the court of a special Judge shall be deemed to be a court of ordinary criminal justice.Section 26. Special Judges appointed under Act 46 of 1952 to be special Judges appointed under this Act.—Every special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 for any area or areas and is holding office on the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a special Judge appointed under section 3 of this Act for that area or areas and, accordingly, on and from such commencement, every such Judge shall continue to deal with all the proceedings pending before him on such commencement in accordance with the provisions of this Act.Corruption is considered to be one of the greatest impediments on the way towards progress for developing country like India. The economic, social and cultural structure of our country is very strong; however, due to the menace called- Corruption, it has been adversely affected and has become defenseless against the forces of anti-social elements. According to ShriN.Vittal, Former Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the first stage in the dynamics of the rule of law is the framing of effective rules and laws, which are equipped to hinder the ever-rising escalation of the corruption graph. It is in this context that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 becomes highly significant.The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as PCA) came into force on 9th September, 1988. it incorporated the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, and sec. 161 to 165-A of the Indian Penal Code with modifications, enlarged the scope of the definition of the expression 'Public Servant' and amended the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinanc,k1944. The PCA, 1988l, thereby widened the coverage, strengthened the provisions and made them more effective.The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:- A] Definitions:The most important definitions are that of :- Public duty- Public servant1) Public Duty: It means a duty that is dine for the benefit of the State, the public or the community at a large. It this context, State would mean: a) A corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act.b) An authority or a body owned controlled or aided by the Government company as defined in Sec. 617 of the Companies Act,1956.2) Public Servant: It is unique term in Anti-corruption law, being the deciding factor at the threshold, of one's liability, depending on his being public servant. The term 'Public Servant' was not defined under the PCA, 1947 and the Act adopted the definition of the term under sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The PCA of 1988 provides a wider definition in the Act itself under clause (c) of sec.2PuneetSabharwalvs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 January, 2010Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not an interlocutory order and therefore revision against such an order is not barred and the judgment of this Court in DharambirKhattar's case (supra) holding therein that a Revision Petition against such an order is not maintainable needs reconsideration by a larger Bench; (ii) the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been taken away by Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and in suitable cases such powers can be invoked, when an order framing charge or directing framing of charge in a corruption case is challenged, by a person aggrieved from such an order; (iii) the constitutional power of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution have not been and cannot be taken away by a statutory enactment, including Section 19(3) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This is also their contention that the observations of this Court in the case of DharambirKhattar (supra) to the effect that neither powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked in such cases are by way of obiter and do not constitute the ratio decidendi of the case.State of Madhya Pradesh vs. SheetlaSahay and Ors. 2009 (8) SC 617 in support of their contention that the revision petition against order framing charge in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act is maintainable. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Special judge framed charge against the respondents in the case under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1988. On a revision filed by them, the impugned order was set aside by the High Court. The appeal preferred by the State against the order of the High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A perusal of this judgment would show that no contention was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court could not have set aside the charge in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The arguments on behalf of the appellant find incorporation in para 34 of the judgment and the contention before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the sanction in terms of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not required since respondents 1 to 4 were no longer holders of public office and that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court could not have appreciated evidence and probative value of the material brought on record. Since neither the expression ‗interlocutory order' came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor the extent of revisional power of the High Court in a corruption case came to be considered before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case, it cannot be said that by dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that the Revision Petition against charge framed under Prevention of Corruption Act was maintainable before the High Court.High court decisionIn dealing with the appeals against the special judge's order, the high court observed that an anomalous situation would be created if various accused individuals charged with offences arising out of the original information report were tried by different courts on the "flimsy ground" that some were charged only with offences arising out of the Penal Code, rather than offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The high court found that trying all matters relating to the NRHM scam before one court was administratively and judicially sound. Further, the high court observed that such an approach would advance the cause of justice with regard to the NRHM scam, as having one court review the case instead of multiple courts would prevent conflicting positions and judgments. Further, the high court found that the death of a public servant who was named in the charge sheet and against whom charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were sought would not bring an end to the trail regarding that charge sheet.Supreme Court decisionThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding as follows:With regard to the first question, as charges had not been brought before the special judge, but charges based on material placed on record under the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been ruled out, the arguments advanced to challenge the high court's order were premature. With regard to the second question, the Supreme Court held that the special judge was not only authorised to deal with the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act but also other offences. According to the Supreme Court, this course was permissible in view of its jurisprudence in EssarTeleholdings Ltd. The Supreme Court went on to hold that the special court in question had been constituted not only to deal with the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but also all cases relating to the NRHM scam. The Supreme Court was of the view that the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the trial before the special judge, as the object of doing so was to try connected cases before the same court. It further held that both offences falling within and outside of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be tried by the special judge under Section 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as this was not prevented by law.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

2804 Views 4 years ago

Bare Section 29 and section 30 of The Prevention and Corruption act is given as follows: 29. Amendment of the Ordinance 38 of 1944.—In the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944,—(a) in sub-section (1) of section 3, sub-section (1) of section 9, clause (a) of section 10, sub-section (1) of section 11 and sub-section (1) of section 13, for the words “State Government”, wherever they occur, the words “State Government or, as the case may be, the Central Government” shall be substituted;(b) in section 10, in clause (a), for the words “three months”, the words “one year” shall be substituted;(c)in the Schedule,—(i)  paragraph 1 shall be omitted;(ii) in paragraphs 2 and 4,—(a) after the words “a local authority”, the words and figures “or a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or a society aided by such corporation, authority, body or Government company” shall be inserted;(b) after the words “or authority”, the words “or corporation or body or Government company or society” shall be inserted(iii) for paragraph 4A, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:— “4A. An offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”;(iv)in paragraph 5, for the words and figures “items 2, 3 and 4”, the words, figures and letter “items 2, 3, 4 and 4A” shall be substituted.SECTION 29MEANINGSection 29(a) talks about substitution of the word “State government” with “State government or, as the case maybe ,the Central government” in section 3(1),section 9(1), section 10(a) and section 13(1) in The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance,1944.section 29(b) talks about the substitution of “one year” in the place “ three months” in clause a of section 10 of the ordinance 38 of 1944.Section 29(c) talks about the amendments made I the schedule of ordinance number 38.Section 29(c)(i) says that paragraph one shall be omitted from the schedule of ordinance number 38 of 1944.Section 29(c)(ii) talks about the editing of words in the paragraph 2 and 4 of the schedule.Section29(c)(ii)(a) says that after the word “local authority”, the words figures “or a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or a society aided by such corporation, authority, body or Government company” will be inserted.Section 29(c)(ii)(b) says that after the words “or authority” the words “or corporation or body or Government company or society” will be inserted in the paragraph 2 and 4 in the ordinance no. 38 of 1944. Section 29(c)(iii) says paragraph 4A will be inserted in the ordinance number 38 of 1944 which will talk about offence punishable under The Prevention Of Corruption Act,1988.Section 29(c)(iv) says that in the paragraph 5 of the schedule of the ordinance number 38 of 1944 in the place of “items 2,3and 4” the words “items 2,3,4 and 4A” shall be substituted.EXPLANATIONIn section 29(c)(i), in schedule of The Criminal Law (Ammendment) Ordinance  paragraph 1 has been omitted in The Prevention of Corruption act,1988 and in section 29(c)(ii) some changes have been made in paragraph 2 and 4 of the ordinance number 38 under The Prevention Of Corruption Act,1988. Section 29(c)(ii)(a) says that after the word “local authority”, the words and figures“or a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or a society aided by such corporation, authority, body or Government company” shall be inserted;In section 29(c)(i), in schedule of The Criminal Law (Ammendment) Ordinance passage 1 has been discarded in The Prevention of Corruption act,1988 and in section 29(c)(ii) a few changes have been made in section 2 and 4 of the ordinance number 38 under The Prevention Of Corruption Act,1988. In section29(c)(ii)(a) it is said that after "local authority" meaning neighbourhood expert, the words are embedded which means an organization set up by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a specialist or a body claimed or controlled or helped by Government or a Government organization as characterized in segment 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or a general public supported by such enterprise, specialist, body or Government organization. section 29(c)(ii)(b)  explains that after the words "or authority", the words “or corporation or body or Government company or society” shall be inserted; which means that enterprise or body or Government organization or society will be embedded.LANDMARK CASESIn the case of DR.VK RAJAN vs. STATE OF KERELAIn this way, in perspective on the unmistakable arrangements in the P.C. Act obviously the arrangements of the Ordinance are embraced in the P.C. Act are as yet material. Subsequently, Crl. Request No.1400/2007 and we are of the view that the Ordinance is substantial and still pertinent and any arrangements of the Ordinance as changed by section 5 (6) and section 29 of the P.C. Act are substantial as explicitly acknowledged and received by the arrangements of the P.C. Act. A plenty of choices of Supreme Court and High Court were refered to before us to demonstrate that the Ordinance is as yet legitimate. (See: M.M. Deals and Exports (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. what's more, others v. The State of UP and others (AIR 1974 Allahabad 263); State of Bihar v. Santo Kumar Mith and others (AIR 1952 Patna 148) and so on.) Therefore, Ordinance is acknowledged and pursued all through India after Independence.In the case of SHIV SHANKAR VERMA AND ORS. vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE AND ORS.The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 was additionally altered by Section 29 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 is the consequence of the administrative endeavors on relinquishment and seizure of any property amassed by a local official either in his name or in anybodys name by perpetrating the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The arrangements are wide and viable to such an extent as may show up from Sections 10,11,12 and 13of the Ordinance that the reallocated property may not return to such a community worker under some inevitability. The above noted Ordinance was relevant just to a couple of offenses which were included into the Schedule of the Ordinance and that was not completely appropriate to any individual who was being arraigned for submitting an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.In the case of RAJENDRA KUMAR vs. STATE OF GOA The learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is tainted and full of infirmities and, therefore, the conviction of the accused is unsustainable in law. According to learned Counsel, four of the raiding party members, namely PI Ashish Shirodkar, PC Sandip Parab, PC Saish Pokle and PSI  Punaji Gawas have been chargesheeted in Crime No. 16/2010, registered with State CID, Crime Branch, Dona Paula, for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 409, 120-B IPC, read with Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 8(c), read with Sections 28, 29, 30, 31 and 59(b) of the Act and as such, no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of the two police officials, namely PW.7 Punaji Gawas and PW.5 Dina Mandrekar, who have been examined in the present case. According to the learned Counsel, since PW.7 Punaji Gawas, who according to the prosecution conducted the raid, is an accused, no reliance can be placed upon the evidence led by the prosecution and the possibility of  false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. section 29(b) talks about the substitution of “one year” in the place “ three months” in clause a of section 10 of the ordinance 38 of 1944.In the case of A. SAMBAIAH NAYAK AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF TELANGANA Section 10 of the Ordinance deals with duration of attachment in force. Unless it is withdrawn, an order of ad interim attachment would be in force for a period of three months, prior to 1988 and it is one year with effect from 09.9.1988, by virtue of  Section 29 of the PC Act. After expiry of the time of one year, the concerned expert needs to make an application, for expansion of the request of substitute connection, subject to non-taking of insight of offense by the Special Court. On the off chance that, in any way, shape or form, the Authority neglects to record appeal looking for expansion of temporary connection, inside the time of one year, a similar will stop consequently. At the point when such possibility emerges, the Authority has no alternative but to record a crisp application for re-connection of the property. When the Special Court takes comprehension of offense, the connection will proceed till end of the criminal procedures.Section 30  Section 30 of the the prevention of corruption act talks about Annulment and sparing.— 1.The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952) are therefore revoked.  2. Notwithstanding such annulment, however without preference to the utilization of segment 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), anything done or any move made or indicated to have been done or taken under or in compatibility of the Acts so revoked will, to the extent that it isn't conflicting with the arrangements of this Act, be regarded to have been done or taken under or in compatibility of the relating arrangement of this Act.EXPLANATIONThe Prevention of Corruption Act came into power in September 1988. It united the arrangements of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, a few sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Criminal Law Act, 1952. The sole thought was to get every important arrangement a solitary Act. Finding that gift and debasement among community workers had significantly expanded during and after the Second World War and numerous deceitful officers had amassed immense riches, and the current arrangements of the IPC and the CrPC were lacking to handle this issue, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was passed. In the Criminal Procedure Code, offenses identifying with community workers are not cognisable, yet the 1947 Act made it mandatory for the court to make certain assumptions of blame against the denounced. The 1947 Act moved the weight of evidence from the arraignment to the blamed. The in­vestigation against the charged was to be made by an officer not beneath the position of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The 1947 Act proclaimed such degenerate acts offenses as accepting hush money, misappropriation, acquiring a monetary preferred position, having resources dis-suitable to pay, and manhandling authority position. In any case, the expert for indictment was vested distinctly in the office specialists and not in the Central Bureau of Investiga­tion (CBI). The 1988 Act developed the extent of the term 'community worker' and included an enormous number of representatives inside its ambit. CASES: In the case of  HARNEK SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB In this case the Punjab government under section 30(2) of the prevention of corruption act and section 6 of genral clauses act issued notification annexures to respondent 1 and respondent 2 authorising all inspectors of police,vigilance department to investigate the case under the act in whole of Punjab state.In the case of M. SOUNDARAJAN vs. STATE THROUGHIn this respect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was repealed by Act 49 of 1988 under Section 30, the repealed provisions got saved. The sub Section (2) of section 30 had categorically saved all the actions done or taken or perpetuated to have been done or taken under the Repealed Act, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act. It shall be deemed to be done in pursuance to the corresponding provisions of this Act.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +1 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

3258 Views 4 years ago

Section 30 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Repeal and saving.—(1) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952) are hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice to the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the Acts so repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of this Act.Meaning and literal explanation: ·      Section 30(1) states that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952) have been thusannulled.·      Section 30(2) of the act states that there shall be no prejudice towards the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897[1] which states the effect of repeal of any act or any statute, and thus any action being taken or anything done in the pursuance of the acts repealed by the section 30(1) of the said Act, shall stand saved in pursuance of the corresponding provision of this act as long as it does not stand in derogation with any of the provisions of this Act. Need and Importance of section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 :The sole reason of the enactment of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 was to prevent the rampant and serious increase in the corruptive practices that came to a rise at the time of independence of our nation. This act was enacted by the parliament because of the extensive bribery and corruption amongst the public servants which had increased enormously on account of the second world war conditions where the disbursement of the public money in large quantities was involved and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stood somewhat inadequate in order to stand as a basis for the actions being taken against these corrupt public servants. However this act being a social piece of protection against corruption which was guaranteed by the Constitution of India, was repealed under section 30 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This section also repealed the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952. However it was stated under section 30(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that any of the prosecutions in any case law being done by the Indian Judicature shall stand as affirmed even if they were done according the acts which were repealed in the section 30(1) of the said Act as long as these prosecutions did not stand in derogation with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  Practical Application along with Landmark Judgements: Our nation, after its independence became a sovereign power and a democratic republic. However, the post second world war conditions did not improve and the widespread corruptive practices continued. The Government of our country had the responsibility to improve the living conditions and standard of the Indian citizens in every walk of their lives. Therefore, extensive projects had been undertaken by the Central Government as well as the State Government under the Five Year Plans, involving the fair and ample distribution of the public money in the sum of crores when there was a rising temptation of greed for a better fortune and thus this gave a wide scope for the employment of corrupt practices which thereby blocked progress in the nation. This made the Government of our nation realise that there were many loopholes in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which stood as hurdles in the rapid progress of our nation and therefore this act was repealed under section 30(1) of the new act formulated with the same name in the year 1988. This act was enacted thus for a more effective prevention of corruption and curbing of the cases of bribery in our country. Now, any individual whether related to any public entity or being a private individual, if found trying to grab certain funds belonging to the public and planning certain conspiracies with corrupt beings thereby standing liable for these corroding practices will not be able to escape liability and shall be charged under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Apex court of the nation in the case, ‘State of West Bengal v. Manmal[2]’ had precisely dealt with this issue wherein it held that even private individuals who are or were involved in the corruptive practices along with the public servants were liable to be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court in the case, ‘Ramesh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh[3]’ said that if any case of corruption prior to the enactment of the POC Act in 1988 was dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it will stand to be considered as completely legal and valid as long as it did not violate any of the provisions of the act enacted with the same name in 1988. This concept was explained even better by the High Court of New Delhi in the case, Virendra Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation[4]. To make the operations of the anti- corruptive laws even more effective in our nation, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was legislated and had the object of dealing with the circumstances, contingencies and shortcomings which were observed whilst the act of 1947 was enacted and was under operation in India. These steps also led to the repeal of the Criminal Laws amendment Act of 1952 as per section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. In the case ‘C.B.I. v. ‘Subodh K. Dutta’[5], the cognizance of the offence taken by the Special Court under the 1947 act stood saved as per the Section 30 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Thus explained the Section 30 of the act enacted in 1988 saves the essence of the act of 1947 as well as the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952. This repeal did not curb the active procedures of stopping the corruptive practices in India but also maintained the supremacy of the Law over the land. [1]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1030013/[2]1977 Cr. L.J. 1164 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1772.[3] 1991 Cr. L.J. 2957 at 2959 (M.P.)[4]W.P (CRIMINAL) NOS. 765/2010 & 871/2010 [5] 199Cr. L.J. 1173 ; A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 869.

NOTES ON CORRUPTION ACT +3 more

by Ramya Thoti

Stash 0

3829 Views 4 years ago