Corruption And The Prevention Of Corruption Act
1. Introduction to Corruption and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988 is a special law in India enacted to combat corruption in public offices. It strengthens the legal framework for penalizing bribery, criminal misconduct, and abuse of public office.
Objectives of the PCA
Prevent corruption in government offices and public authorities.
Penalize bribery and misuse of official power.
Ensure transparency, integrity, and accountability in administration.
Scope
Applies to public servants (defined under Section 2(c)).
Offences include:
Bribery (accepting or giving gratification)
Criminal misconduct (misusing position for undue advantage)
Possession of disproportionate assets
2. Important Provisions
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| 7 | Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration. |
| 8 | Taking gratification for influencing public servant in his official function. |
| 9 | Taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with a public servant. |
| 10 | Punishment for abetment of offences under Sections 7, 8, 9. |
| 11 | Punishment for public servant guilty of criminal misconduct. |
| 13 | Criminal misconduct by a public servant (e.g., illicit enrichment, abusing position). |
| 14 | Presumption in cases of possession of disproportionate assets. |
| 15–19 | Procedures for investigation and attachment of property under the Act. |
Note: The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 strengthened the law further, criminalizing bribery of public officials by private persons, and making the definition of criminal misconduct more precise.
3. Procedure for Investigation
FIR / Complaint: Police or CBI may register a case.
Prior sanction (Section 19 PCA): Prosecution of a public servant requires sanction from appropriate authority.
Investigation: Conducted by CBI or police under IPC/CrPC and PCA.
Attachment of property (Sections 17–18): Assets can be provisionally attached if disproportionate to known sources of income.
Trial and punishment: Punishable by imprisonment and/or fine.
4. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655
Facts: K. Veeraswami, a former Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, was accused of possessing disproportionate assets.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that sanction from the competent authority is mandatory before prosecuting a public servant.
Emphasized strict adherence to procedural safeguards in PCA.
Significance:
Reinforced Section 19 PCA; prosecution without sanction is invalid.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts: Case of a public servant accepting gratification in return for favors.
Judgment:
Supreme Court clarified the definition of gratification includes both monetary and non-monetary benefits.
Even minor perks may constitute criminal liability if linked to official duties.
Significance:
Broadened interpretation of what constitutes bribery.
Case 3: CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (1998) 1 SCC 1
Facts: Allegation of criminal misconduct by a bank officer in sanctioning loans.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that criminal misconduct under Section 13 PCA includes abuse of position to obtain undue advantage.
Mere error in judgment without personal gain is not criminal misconduct.
Significance:
Differentiates between administrative negligence and deliberate corruption.
Case 4: State of Karnataka v. B. K. Pavithran (2002) 7 SCC 660
Facts: Public servant accused of acquiring assets disproportionate to known income.
Judgment:
Possession of disproportionate assets creates presumption of corruption under Section 14 PCA.
Burden of proof shifts to the accused to justify lawful acquisition.
Significance:
PCA empowers courts to presume corruption in cases of disproportionate wealth.
Case 5: R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1999) 7 SCC 10
Facts: Public servant prosecuted without sanction of the competent authority.
Judgment:
Prosecution without prior sanction is illegal and null.
Court quashed proceedings against the accused.
Significance:
Reiterates mandatory procedural safeguard under Section 19 PCA.
Case 6: CBI v. S. Raju (2010) 2 SCC 90
Facts: Alleged acceptance of bribe by a public servant in tendering process.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that for Section 7 PCA, it is sufficient if the gratification is accepted directly or indirectly for official duties.
Even unsolicited benefits may amount to corruption if linked to public duty.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of “gratification” and criminal liability.
Case 7: K. Karunakaran v. CBI (1999) 2 SCC 263
Facts: Former Kerala Chief Minister alleged to have amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources.
Judgment:
Court examined constitutional immunity for elected officials; held immunity applies only during active tenure.
Post-tenure, officials can be prosecuted under PCA.
Significance:
Clarified application of PCA against high-ranking public servants.
5. Key Principles from Case Law
Prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants (Veeraswami, R. K. Jain).
Gratification includes monetary and non-monetary benefits (Dr. Praful Desai, S. Raju).
Criminal misconduct requires deliberate abuse of office for personal gain (Ramesh Gelli).
Disproportionate assets create presumption of corruption, shifting burden to the accused (B. K. Pavithran).
Elected officials can be prosecuted post-tenure (Karunakaran).
Procedural safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure fair prosecution.
6. Conclusion
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a powerful tool to combat corruption in public offices.
Its effective enforcement depends on:
Proper investigation by competent authorities (CBI, State Police).
Prior sanction for prosecution of public servants.
Judicial scrutiny of disproportionate assets and gratification.
Fair trial adhering to constitutional safeguards.
Landmark cases have strengthened the law by clarifying:
Scope of bribery and criminal misconduct.
Presumption of corruption in cases of unexplained wealth.
Mandatory procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments