CHAPTER – V

CORRUPTION BY PUBLIC SERVANTS AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS IN PREVENTION THEREOF

INTRODUCTION
First of all it is necessary to know the circumstances in which the need of Act to
prevent corruption was realised. In other words there were some aims and objects behind
enactment of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988 which are as follow:-
1. The Prevention of Corruption Bill having been passed by both the Houses of
Parliament received the assent of the President on 9th September, 1988. It came on the
Statute Book as The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988).
It cannot be lost sight of that Act No. 2 of 1947 has been enacted by the
Parliament because of bribery and corruption rampant amongst public servants which had
enormously increased on account of the Second World War conditions where
disbursement of public money in large quantity of sums was involved and the provisions
of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate for taking suitable action
against corrupt public servants. Therefore, to prevent the seriousness of the evil and
curbing our corruption, Act No. 2 of 1947 was enacted and this Act is a social piece of
protection that is guaranteed under the Constitution of India, this Act and the allied laws.
After independence, India becoming a sovereign democratic republic, the situation of
post-war conditions did not improve and rampant corruption continues. In order to
improve the living standard of citizens in every walk of life, extensive projects have been
undertaken by the Central Government and the State Governments under the five year
plans, involving disbursement of public money in crores where temptation of greed for
good fortune gives wide scope for employing corrupt practices blocking rapid progress in
the country and therefore recently the Parliament has enacted Prevention of Corruption
Act (No. 49 of 1988) for more effective prevention of corruption and bribery cases.
Therefore, private individuals who are found grabbing public funds in conspiracy with
and liable for such corrupt activities under the Prevention of Corruption Act and in such
circumstances private individuals also cannot escape liability of the charge under the

268
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Manmal, 1977 Cr. L.J. 1164 (S.C.) :
A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1772, has precisely dealt with the point in issue and held that even
private individuals who are involved in corruption cases along with public servants are
liable to be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act.- Ramesh Chand Jain v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 1991 Cr. L.J. 2957 at 2959 (M.P.).
In order to consolidate and amend the laws relating to prevention of corruption
and matters thereto, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted, which was
amended from time to time. This was amended in 1914 based on the recommendation of
Santhanam Committee. During the reign of Britishers when Lord McCauley wrote the
Indian Penal Code, he enumerated in the Sections from 161 to 165-A of Chapter IX
which specifically relates to the offences by or relating to public servants. To make the
anti-corruption laws more effective in India. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
legislated with the object of dealing with the circumstances, contingencies and show
comings which were noticed in the working and implementation of 1947 Act. Sections
from 161 to 165-A stand omitted from Indian Penal Code according to Section 31 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and incorporated in the Act with the provision for an
enhanced punishment and speedy disposal of proceedings Prevention of Corruption Act
is a social Welfare Legislation, which has been framed to remove corruption from public
service. Public Service has been treated as an ideal and model class to set an example for
the entire public to ensure that all public transactions should be far from being tainted
with corruption. In the case of Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 Cr. L.J.
2982 : A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2399, it was held that when the offence 2005 committed it was
the 1947 Act which was in operation.
At the time when FIR was lodged, it was also the 1947 Act which was in
operation. Reliance on Sec. 30(2) of Section 1988 Act to hold that offence for which the
appellant should have been charged was one which fell under Section 13 of the 1988 Act
is wholly misplaced. The framing of the charge by the trial Court under Section 5(1)(e)
read with Sec. 5(2) of the 1947 Act for offence allegedly committed during check period
1977-1984 is not invalid. The appellant shall not be deemed to have been charged for
offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act.

269
 Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 states that
anything done or any action taken or purported to have been taken, under or in pursuance
of the corresponding provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as such the
cognizance of the offence taken by the Special Court under 1947 Act stands saved by the
1988 Act. C.B.I. v. Subodh K. Dutta, 1997 Cr. L.J. 1173: A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 869. Since
there was no specific provision incorporated in P.C. Act, 1947 regarding powers of
appeal and revision, powers of appeal and revision to High Court were entirely governed
by Sec. 465, Cr.P.C. However, under P.C. Act, 1988 special provision regarding appeal
and revision is incorporated in Section 27. Thus, powers of appeal and revision conferred
by Cr. P.C. shall be subject to the provisions of 1988 Act. Under Section 19(3)(a) of 1988
Act no order of conviction and sentence can be reversed or altered by the Court of appeal
or revision even “on the ground of absence of sanction” unless in the opinion of that
Court, a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. C.B.I. v. V.K. Shehgal, 1999 Cr.
Z.J. 4593: 1999 S.C. 3706.
2. The Act was intended to make effective provision for the prevention of bribe and
corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation defined to curb
illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to
advance its object. Dealing with the object underlying the Act, the Supreme Court in R.S.
Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 S.C.C. 183: 1984 Cr. L.J. 613, would hold as follows :
'The 1947 Act was enacted, as its long title shows, to make more effective
provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption. Indisputably, therefore, the
provisions of the Act must receive such construction at the hands of the Court as
would advance the object and purpose underlying the Act and at any rate not
defeat it. If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest
duty of the Court to give effect to the natural-meaning of the words used in the
prevision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity,
or the plain meaning of the words used in the statute would be self-defeating. The
Court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the Legislature to remove the
ambiguity by construing the prevision of the statute as a whole keeping in view
what was the mischief when the statute was enacted and to remove which the
Legislature enacted the Statute. The rule of construction is so universally accepted

270
 that it need not be supported by precedents. Adopting this rule of construction,
whenever a question of construction arises upon ambiguity or where two views
are possible of a provision, it would be the duty of the Court to adopt that
construction which would advance the object underlying the Act.” - R.
Gopalkrishnan v. State, 2002 Cr. L.J. 47 at pp. 53-54.”
3. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an Act intended to consolidate and
amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected
therewith. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reveal that the Act is intended to make
the existing anti-corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by
strengthening the provisions. It inter alia envisages widening the scope of definition of
offences under Sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, enhancement of penalties
provides for these offences and incorporation of a provision that the order of the trial
Court upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution would be final if it has not already
been challenged and the trial has commenced. The provisions of Sections 161 to 165A of
the Indian Penal Code or incorporated into the Act with enhanced punishment J.
Venkateswarlu v. Union of India, 2002 Cr. L.J. 4009 at p. 4015 (A.P.).
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted for more effective
prevention of bribery and corruption. Years rolled by and experience gathered showed
that unless a special forum for the trial of such offences as enumerated in the 1947 Act is
created, the object underlying the 1947 Act would remain a distant dream. This led to the
enactment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons accompanying the Bill refers to the recommendations of the committee chaired
by Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand appointed to review the working of the Special Police
Establishment and to make recommendations for improvement of laws relating to bribery
and corruption. To take the cases of corruption out of the maze of cases handled by
Magistrate, it was decided to set up special Courts. Section 6 conferred power on the
State Government to appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary with power to
try the offences set out in Clauses (a) and (b). Now if at this stage a reference is made to
Section 6 of the Criminal P.C. which provides for constitution of Criminal Courts, it
would become clear that a new Court with a new designation was being set up and that it
has to be under the administrative and judicial superintendence of the High Court. As

271
already pointed out, there were four types of Criminal Courts functioning under the High
Court. To this list was added the Court of a special Judge. Now when a new Court which
is indisputably a Criminal Court, because it was not even whispered that the Court of
special Judge is not a Criminal Court, is set up to make it effective and functionally
oriented, it becomes necessary to prescribe its powers, procedure, status and all ancillary
provisions. While setting up a Court of a special Judge keeping in view the fact that the
high dignitaries in public life are likely to be tried by such a Court the qualification
prescribed was that the person to be appointed as special Judge has to be either a Sessions
Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge. These three dignitaries are
above the level of a Magistrate. After prescribing the qualification, the Legislature
proceeded to confer power upon a special Judge to take cognizance of offences for the
trial of which a special Court with exclusive jurisdiction was being set up. If a special
Judge has to take cognizance of offences, ipso facto the procedure for trial of such
offences has to be procedure for trial of such offences has to be prescribed. Now the
Code prescribes different procedures for trial of cases by different Courts. Procedure for
trial of a case before a Court of Sessions is set out in Chapter XVIII; trial of warrant cases
by Magistrates is set out in Chapter XIX and the provisions therein included catered to
both the types of cases coming before the Magistrate namely, upon police report or
otherwise than on a police report. Chapter XX prescribes the procedure for trial of
summons cases by Magistrates and Chapter XXI prescribes the procedure for summary
trial. Now that a new Criminal Court was being set up, the Legislature took the first step
of providing its comparative position in the hierarchy of Courts under Section 6, Cr.P.C.
by bringing it on level more or less comparable to the Court of Session, but in
comparison by level, it was made explicit in Section 8(1) itself that it is not a Court of
Sessions because it can take cognizance of offences without commitment as
contemplated by Section 193, Cr.P.C. Undoubtedly in Section 8(3) it was clearly laid
down that subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8, the Court of
special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions trying cases without a jury or
without the aid of assessors. In contra-distinction to the Sessions Court this new Court
was to be a Court of original jurisdiction. The Legislature then proceeded to specify
which out of the various procedures set out in the Code, this new Court shall follow for

272
trial of offences before it. Section 8(1) specifically says that a special Judge in trial of
offences before him shall follow the procedure prescribed in the Criminal P.C. for trial of
warrant cases by Magistrates. – A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, A.I.R. 1984
S.C. 718 at pp. 733-34 : 1984 S.C.C. (Cr) 277.
A perusal of the Statement of Object and Reasons behind the enactment of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reveals that the legislators wanted to amend the
existing anti corruption laws with a view to making them more effective by extending the
scope and ambit of the definition of 'public servant' and to bring within its sweep each
and every person who held an office by virtue of which he was required to perform any
public duty.
Thus the underlying idea was to eradicate the corruption. The object of the Act is
a very laudable one. Hence it cannot be so construed as to narrow down its scope. It is
well-known that when the words of a statute are wide and clear then a restrictive meaning
cannot be given to them. The purpose of the Act is clear and unambiguous i.e. the
eradication of the corruption. Hence a construction which would enhance the object of
the Act and curb the mischief has to be put. The object of the Act is to serve as a beacon.
If there are certain crevices and dark areas in the enactment they are to be illuminated
with the help of the said object, nay it is the duty of the Court to put such construction
which would illuminate the said areas. Thus this Court is of the view that having regard
to the moral and commendable object of the Act a purposive interpretation should be put
on the relevant provisions of law so as to fulfil the intention of the legislature and eschew
an interpretation which defeats the object of the Act. – L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 1997 Cr. L.J. 2559 at p. 2567 (Delhi) : 1997 (4) Crimes 1.
Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in
time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous
consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled
spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HR/ leading to AIDS, being
incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to
such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight.
Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but
aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural,

273
heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence—shaking
of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and
vibrating society. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by
the First and Second World War conditions. Corruption, at the initial stages, was
considered confined to the bureaucracy which had the opportunities to deal with a variety
of State largesse in the form of contracts, licences and grants. Even after the war the
opportunities for corruption continued as large amounts of government surplus stores
were required to be disposed of by the public servants. As a consequence of the wars the
shortage of various goods necessitated the imposition of controls and extensive schemes
of post-war reconstruction involving the disbursement of huge sums of money which lay
in the control of the public servants giving them a wide discretion with the result of luring
them to the glittering shine of wealth and property. In order to consolidate and amend the
laws relating to prevention of corruption and matters connected thereto, the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted which was amended from time to time. In the year
1988 a new Act on the subject being Act 49 of 1988 was enacted with the Object of
dealing with the circumstances, contingencies and shortcomings which were noticed in
the working and implementation of the 1947 Act. The law relating to prevention of
corruption was essentially made to deal with the public servants, not as understood in
common parlance but specifically defined in the Act.
4. The Act was intended to make effective provisions for the prevention of bribery
and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation intended to
curb illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as
to advance its object. Dealing with the object underlying the Act this Court in R.S. Nayah
v. A.R. Ant ulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172, held : (SCC p. 200, para 18) :
“18. The 1947 Act was enacted, as its long title shows, to make more effective
provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption. Indisputably, therefore, the
provisions of the Act must receive such construction at the hands of the court as
would advance the object and purpose underlying the Act and at any rate not
defeat it If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest
duty of the court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the
provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or

274
 the plain meaning of the words used in the statute would be self-defeating. The
court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the legislature to remove the
ambiguity by construing the provision of the statute as a whole keeping in view
what was the mischief when the statute was enacted and to remove which the
Legislature enacted the statute. This rule of construction is so universally accepted
that it need not be supported by precedents. Adopting this rule of construction,
whenever a question of construction arises upon ambiguity or where two views
are possible of a provision, it would be the duty of the court to adopt that
construction which would advance the object underlying the Act, namely, to make
effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption and at any rate not
defeat it.”
Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the
object sought to be achieved by the Act. The overall public interest and the social object
is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of the Act and
deciding cases under it—State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, 2000 SCC (Cr.) 886 at pp. 891-92 :
2000 Cr. L.J. 1401 (S.C.).
India – Before Indian Independence Act (10 and 11 Geo. VI, c. 30) came into
force on the 15th August, 1947, India was divided into (1) British India (consisting of
nine Governor's Provinces and five Chief Commissioners' Provinces), and (2) Native
States numbering about 561. The Indian Independence Act ushered into existence two
separate dominions :
(1) Pakistan comprising former British Indian Provinces of Sind, Baluchistan, West
Punjab, the North-West Frontier Provinces and East, Bengal, and
(2) India comprising the rest of British India.
By a rapid process of accession and merger the Indian States lying in the
Dominion of India became integral units of the Indian Union. Now India is a Union of
States.
“India” shall mean –
Dominion of India comprising –
(a) as respects any period before the establishment of the Dominion of India,
British India together with all territories of Indian Rulers then under the

275
 suzerainty of His Majesty, all territories under the suzerainty of such art
Indian Ruler, and the tribal areas;
(b) as respects any period after the establishment of the DOminion of India and
before the commencement of the Constitution, all territories for the time being
included in that Dominion; and
(c) as respects any period after the commencement of the Constitution, all
territories .for the time being comprised in the territory of India.' For purpose
of this Act, “India” means the territory of India, excluding the State of Jammu
and Kashmir.
Under Art. 1(3) of the Constitution of India, the territory of India shall comprise–
(a) the territories of States;
(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.
5. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a complete code in relation to
public servants – At the time when the 1947 Act was made Secs. 161 to 165(a) of the
Indian Penal Code were in existence. A public servant therefore, could be proceeded with
under Sections 161 to 165(a) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5 of the
1947 Act, but no Court could take cognizance of an offence punishable under the
aforesaid section except with the previous sanction. With a view to make the anti-
corruption law more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the
provisions, the 1947 Act was repealed and the 1988 Act was brought in force and
Sections 161 to 165(a) of the Indian Penal Code were omitted. The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 became a complete Code in relation to public servants. Chapter III
of the 1988 Act specifies various offences and penalty therefore and it starts from Section
7 and ends at Section 16. Sections 8, 9 & 12, 14 describe the offences as well as penalties
therefore. For such offences, there is no necessity of taking previous sanction, but in
relation to offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 .& 15 previous sanction is a
must – P.L. Tatwal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2014]
6. Every member of the Executive or every member of the Judiciary is covered
by provisions of the Act – The above snags which came in the way of the Apex Court in
coming to the conclusion that an MLA was not a 'public servant' have now been removed

276
by the amendment of the definition vide CL 2(c)(viii). The scope of the said definition
has been enlarged and widened by removing the said obstacles and hurdles to hold an
MLA or an MP to be a 'public servant'. Now each and every person who holds an office
by virtue of which he is required to perform any public duty in the discharge of which the
State, public or the community at large is interested would be deemed to be a 'public
servant'. It is no more necessary that to be a public servant the said person must be in the
pay of the .Government or remunerated for the performance of any public duty by the
Government. Admittedly, the decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik, 1984 Cr. L.J. 613 :
(1984) 2 S.C.C. 183 : A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 684, was very much before the August Parliament
at the time of the discussion on Prevention of Corruption Act. Mr. Chidarnbaram,
Hon'ble Minister who piloted the Bill even made a Specific reference to Antulay's case.
Thus it can be presumed that the Parliament while enacting the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 enlarged the definition of public servant so as to embrace within its domain
each and every person whosoever holds an office.
Admittedly as the law is today every member of the Executive, every member of
the judiciary is covered by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court K. Veeraswamy v. Union of India, (1991) 3
S.C.C. 655. Thus there is no reason, whatsoever as to why members of the legislature
should be immune from the operation of the Act. The Members of Parliament should not
have any quarrel on the said score. The view which is being taken by Calcutta High Court
was also taken by High Court of Australia in His Majesty the King v. Boston, 33 Com
LR 386.
“... A member of Parliament is, therefore in the highest sense, a servant of the
State:
his duties are those appertaining to the position he fills, a position of no transient
or temporary existence, a position forming a recognised place in the constitutional
machinery of government. Why, then does he not hold an “office”? In R. v. White,
(1875) 13 SCR (NSW) (L) 322, it was held, as a matter of course, that he does. That
decision is sound.....”. Clearly a member of Parliament is a public officer in a very real
sense, for he has, in the words of William, J. in Faulkner v. Upper Boddington Overseers,
0857) 3 CB (NS) 412, “duties” to, perform which would constitute in law an office. –

277
L.K. Advani v. Central, Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Cr. L.J. 2559 at pp. 2569-70 (Cal)
:1997 (4) Crimes 1.
7. History of legislation of Corruption Acts — Some amendments were carried
out even thereafter from time to time in the P.C. Act of 1947. In order to consolidate and
amend the law relating to 'the prevention of corruption and for matters connected
therewith, the P.C. Act of` 1988 (49 of 1988) has been enacted. Most of the provisions of
the P.C. Act of 1988 are verbatim reproduction of 1952 Amendment Act. Under Section
3 of P.C. Act of 1988 which corresponds to Section 6 of the 1952 Amendment Act,
provision has been made for appointment of Special Judge by the Central Government or
the State Government by notification in the official gazette. Sub-section (2) of Section 3
of the P.C. Act of 1988 prescribed the qualification of a special Judge, according to
which a person shall not be appointed as a Special Judge unless he is or has been a
Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the
Cr.P.C. Sec. 4 of the P.C. Act of 1988 corresponds to Sec. 7 of the 1952 Amendment Act,
which states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. or any other law for
the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 3 shall be tried by
Special Judges only. Sub-section (3) provides that the Special Judge, while trying any
case may also try any offence under than an offence specified in Sec. 3 with which the
accused may, under the Cr.P.C. be charged at the same trial. The procedure for trial and
the power of the Special Judge have been provided under Section 5 of the P.C. Act of
1988, which corresponds to Sec. 8 of the 1952 Amendment Act. Sec. 6 of the P.C. Act of
1988 empowers the Special Judge to try offence in summary way under certain
conditions Sec. 27 of the P.C. Act of 1988 lays down that subject to the provisions of this
Act, the High Court may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all the powers of
appeal and revision conferred by the Cr. P.C. (2 of 1974) on a High Court as if the Courts
of the Special Judge were a Court of Sessions trying cases within the local limits of the
High Court. By Section 30 of the P.C. Act of 1988, the P.C. Act of 1947 and the 1952
Amendment Act have been repealed. According to Sec. 31 of the P.C. Act of 1988,
Sections 161 to 165-A of the Indian Penal Code have been omitted.
Though the history of the legislation may not lead to a definite conclusion to find
out the correct meaning of an expression but at times it may be usefully employed for

278
interpreting the meaning of the Statute. Similarly, the statements of objects and reasons
cannot control the actual words used in the Statute, yet it may be referred to for the
purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time, which necessitated the
making of the law. I have referred to the history of the legislation of the Prevention of
Corruption Acts and the objects and reasons for the enactments for the limited purpose as
they have got some significance in context of this case. The statements of objects and
reasons of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as referred to above, clearly show the
growing tendency among the public servants to indulge in offences mentioned therein.
This is the reason why a separate forum was created and special procedure was
prescribed to exclusively deal with it. – In the matter of reference made by Shri Ravi
Nandan Sahay, Sessions Judge, Patna, 1993, Cr.L.J. 2436 at pp. 2443-44 (Pat.) (F.B.).
Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read together clearly
show that an offence punishable under the said Act can be tried only by a Special Judge
appointed under Section 3 of the said Act and not by any other Court, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was enacted making more effective
provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption. Section 5 of the said Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 defined criminal misconduct of public servant in discharge of
official duty and provided for punishment of the same. There was, however, no provision
in the said Act regarding the Court empowered to try the said offence or for that matter,
the offences punishable under Sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and 165A of the Indian
Penal Code. Subsequently the State of West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special
Courts) Act, 1949 (West Bengal Special Courts, Act, 1949, for short) for the purpose of
making provision for speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offences
specified in the Schedule to the Act. The offences punishable under Secs. 409, 417 and
420, 1PC, committed by a public servant or other persons mentioned therein, an offence
punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as any
offence of conspiracy, attempt or abetment in respect of any such offence are included in
the Schedule. Section 4 of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 provides that
offences specified in the Schedule to the Act shall be triable by Special Courts only and
when trying any such case the Special Court may also try any other offence with which

279
the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged at the same trial.
Section 2 of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 empowers the State Government
to constitute by notification in the official gazette one or more Special Courts and to
appoint a Judge to preside over a Special Court.
In 1952 the Parliament enacted the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 —with
the object of amending the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure and of
providing for a more speedy trial of certain offences. Section 6 of the said Act
empowered the State Government to appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette,
Special Judge to try the offences punishable under Sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and
165A, IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as any
offence of conspiracy, attempt or abetment in respect of any such offence. Section 7 of
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 provided that the offences specified in Section
6 would be triable by Special Judge could also try any other offence with which the
accused could under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged at the same trial.—
Indubhushan Das Gupta v. State, (Inspector of Police, C.B.I.), 1995 Cr. L.J. 1180 at pp.
1185-86 (Cal.).
8. Intention was to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of
corruption – A combined effect of the provisions as engrafted in Sections 30 and 31 and
the preamble of the new Act (Act 49/1988) makes it dear that the intention was to
consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters
connected therewith. This clearly shows that the Legislature was alive to the fact the
provisions under Chapter IX of the Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 (Act 2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment Act with modifications so as to
make the provisions more effective in combating corruption among public servants . and
it was to effectuate that intention that the Act (Act 49/1988) was put on the statute book.
It goes without saying that the launching of prosecution under the old Act alone is legally
permissible even subsequent to its repeal, in respect of offences which were committed
during the period when the old Act was in force as there was no period of limitation
prescribed therefore. When the old Act was originally enacted, offences 'relating to
criminal misconduct and corruption were not made cognizable offences and such a policy
was obviously as a result of the laudable intention, not to unnecessarily subject the public

280
servants to harassment from any quarter whatever be hurling of frivolous accusations,
thereby making them suffer agony, anguish and humilitation of all sorts. However, in the
process of combating corruption under the provisions of that Act, experience gained
thereof, impelled the Legislature to make such offences cognizable, of course with certain
inbuilt provision giving necessary protection to the public servant.
The question to be decided now is as to whether acts done constituting cognizable
offences during the currency of a repealed enactment i.e. Act 2/1947, are prosecutable
subsequent to the repeal by Act 49/1988. It is not as if the old Act had been repealed once
and for all, in the sense of there being no replacement by a new enactment. The sordid
fact is that in-order to curb the social menance of over pervading corruption in all walks
of life, the old Act had been repealed and in its place a new Act-had come into existence
which contains rather suitable modification and stringent provisions with a view to
cleanse the public life, free from evils of corruption. In doing so, sufficient care, caution
and circumspection had been taken, by incorporating certain saving provision in the new
Act, as to what is to happen with regard to certain acts done or purported to be done
during the currency of the old Act, subsequent to repeal. The saving provision, enables
the institution of prosecution for such acts under certain contingencies. There is no denial
of the fact that the old Act had been repealed and in its place a new Act had come into
force on and from the date of such repeal, viz. 9-9-1988. Another fact which is not in
dispute is that the criminal acts alleged against the petitioners were relatable to the period
during which the old Act was in force. The Parliament in enacting the new Act took
cognizance of the constitutional provision in. Article 20 of .the Constitution of India and
incorporated a repeal and saving provision in Section ,30 of the new Act. – R.
Balakrishna Pillai v. State, 1996 Cr. L.J. 757 at: p. 763 (Ker.).
Whether an offence committed while-the Act of 1947 was in force can be tried by
the Courts empowered to try offences under the Act of 1947 after coming into force of
the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 9-9-1988 repealing the Act of 1947. The case of the respondents
before the High Court was that the Special Courts had been vested with jurisdiction to,
try cases under the Act of 1947 by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949. After
coming into force of the Act of 1988 no such jurisdiction had been conferred on those
courts and, therefore, they could not take cognizance or try an offence under the

281
corresponding provisions of the Act of 1988.
It is, therefore, necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also other legal
provisions which have a bearing on this subject. Section 5 of the Act of 1947 defines
misconduct while Section 5-A enumerates the police officers who shall investigate any
offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Section 6 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1952, a Central Act, provided for appointment of Special Judges for
trying offences under the Act of 1947, but so far as the State of West Bengal is
concerned, by reason of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts)
Amending Act, 1953, Sections 5 to 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 were
made inapplicable to the State of West Bengal. Therefore, Special Judges under the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 were not appointed in the State of West Bengal.
However, by the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, the
Provincial Government was empowered by notification in the Official Gazette to
constitute Special Courts of criminal jurisdiction and from time to time by notification in
the Official Gazette to allot cases for trial to a Special Judge. The Special Judge had
jurisdiction to try the cases for offences specified in the Schedule' to: the-Act which
included an offence punishable under Sectiom5 of the Act of 1947.
It is thus apparent from the above provisions that the offence under Section 5 of
the Act of 1947 was made exclusively triable by a Special Judge appointed under the
West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. It is not in dispute
that the IIIrd Special Judge before whom the respondents had been put up for trial was a
court vested with such jurisdiction.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came into effect from 9-9-1988. Section
3 of the Act of 1988 empowers the Central Government or the State Government by
notification in the Official Gazette to appoint as many Special Judges as may be
necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in
the notification to try the offences mentioned therein, which includes any offence
punishable under the Act of 1988. Section 4 makes such cases exclusively triable by a
Special Judge. Section 5 confers jurisdiction on the Special Judge to take cognizance of
offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and, in trying the accused

282
persons to follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates – State of West Bengal v. Sedan K. Bormal,
2004 S.C.C. (Cr.) 1739 at p. 1743: 2004 Cr. L.J. 3034 (S.C.).
9. Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from any lack of legislative
competence – As has been held in C.V. Ranganathan v. Union of India, 1981 Cr. L.J.
1754 (Mad.), the power of legislate on criminal law under Entry 1 of List Ill includes the
power to legislate in respect of all persons whether they are public servants or not.
'Criminal Law' under Entry 1 of List ID cannot be restricted to mean criminal law not
affecting public servants. The Entry in a list has to be given wide and liberal
interpretation so as to include within its scope all ancillary and incidental matters.
In the circumstances, we have no doubt whatsoever to hold that the POC Act,
1988 should be taken to be a law only made under Entry I of List III of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. The Parliament and the Legislature of any State also have
power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List M of the
Seventh Schedule. The POC Act, 1988 enacted by the Parliament made under Entry 1 of
List III of the Seventh Schedule does not suffer from any infirmities. It does not suffer
from any lack of legislative competence. It in no manner entrenches upon the legislative
competence of the State to enact laws with regard to the State Public Services since the
law made by the Parliament is not with respect of State Public Services. Nor is it a
legislation in relation to and with respect to Union Public Services – Venkateswaslu v.
Union of India, 2002 Cr. L.J. 4009 at p. 4020 (A.P.).
10. The word “corruption” has wide connotation – Corruption is one of the most
talked about subjects to day in country since it is believed to have penetrated into every
sphere of activity. What distinguishes India from other societies in variety and degree of
corruption afflicting its society has been scintillatingly described by James Cameron, an
eminent Journalist in the following words:
“In India, corruption public or private, venality is sanctified by the oldest
traditions, it is denied by nobody indeed, the totality and pervasiveness of Indian
corruption is almost a matter of national pride.”
It is described as wholly widespread and spectacular.
Bribery and graft by public officers is one of the important crimes which have

283
been characterised as white-collar crimes. The rise of such crimes in many countries in
the economic and industrial fields. It is hardly surprising that the two processes should go
together considering that most of the white-collar crimes are, directly or indirectly,
connected with the production and distribution of wealth. In a welfare State, the
government tends to control a vast number of means of production and distribution of
goods and material services. The Constitution of India provides that the State shall in
particular directed its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the
material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common
good that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment. During the last several
decades the country has seen the execution of various five-years plans involving huge
expenditure by the government for various nation-building activities. The corrupt
officers, businessmen and contractors never had it so good. No doubt the country did
make some progress, but a big chunk of money earmarked for developmental projects has
been pocketed by the white-collar criminals.
The enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 coincided with the inset
of the country's independence. Corruption as such has reached dangerous heights and
dangerous potentialities. The word 'corruption' has wide connotation and embraces
almost all the spheres of our day to day life the word over. In a limited sense it connotes
allowing decisions and actions of a person to be influenced not by rights or wrongs of a
cause, but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. Avarice is a
common freilty of mankind, and while Robert Walpole's observation that every man has
a price, may be a little generalised yet it cannot be gainsaid that it is not far from truth.
Burke cautioned “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long.” – State v.
Bharat Chandra Rout, 1995 Cr. L.J. 2417 at p. 2418 (Orissa).
It is a strange coincidence that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was
enacted in the year of our country's independence.
Corruption is one of the most talked-about subject to day in the country since it is
believed to have penetrated into every sphere of activity. It is described as wholly
widespread and spectacular.
Corruption as such has reached dangerous heights and dangerous potentialities.

284
The word “corruption” has a wide connotation and embraces almost all the spheres of our
day-to-day life the world over. In a limited sense it connotes allowing decisions and
actions of a person to be influenced not by rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the
prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. Avarice is a common frailty
of mankind, and while Robert Walpole's observation that every man has a price, may be a
little generalized, yet it cannot be gainsaid that it is not far from the truth. Burke
cautioned “Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot last long.” – State of A.P. v.
V. Vasudeva Rao, 2004 S.C.C. (Cr.) 968 at p. 972: 2004 Cr.L.J. 620: AIR, 2004 S.C.
960: 2003 (4) Crimes 519 : 2004 (1) K.L.T. 526.
Corruption is one of the important evils of the society whereby every human
being gets himself affected by such evil practice in one way or other. Public life gets
itself polluted in the midst of which citizens have to face difficulties both social,
economic or -otherwise. By the use of influence of corrupt means people with power get
their work done at the cost of, common man. Thereby, the administration becomes
malfunctioned having no efficiency, honesty in its activities and community welfare
eclipsed.
Corruption in civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in
time is sure to malignise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is
termed as plague which is not only contagious, but if not controlled, spreads like a fire in
jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been
termed as Royal thievery. The socio political system exposed to such a dreaded
communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed
democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against
them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud
at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking off the socio economic political
system in an otherwise health, wealthy, effective and vibrating society (State of M.P. v.
Shri Ram Singh, 2000 Cr. L.J. 1401 : A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 870).
The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by First and
Second World War conditions. The corruption, at the initial stages, was considered
confined to the bureaucracy who had the opportunities to deal with a variety of State
largesse in the form of contracts, licences and grants. Even after the war the opportunities

285
for corruption continued as large amounts of Government surplus stores were required to
be disposed of by public servants. As a consequence of the wars the shortage of various
goods necessitated the imposition of controls and extensive schemes of post war
reconstructions involving the disbursement of huge sums of money which lay in the
control of the-public servants giving them wide discretion with the result of luring them
to the glittering shine of the wealth and property. – Corruption in India : Measures for-its-
Prevention etc. 2005 Cr.14. (Journal) 45 at p. 45.
11. The word “corruption” embraces almost all the spheres of our day to day life
and world over – Corruption is one of the most talked about subjects today in the
country since it is believed to have penetrated into every sphere of activity. It is described
as wholly widespread and spectacular.
Corruption as such has reached dangerous heights and dangerous potentialities.
The word “corruption” was wide connotation and embraces almost all the spheres of our
day-to-day life the world over. In a limited sense it connotes allowing decisions and
actions of a person to be influenced not by rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the
prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. Avarice is a common frailty
of mankind, and while Robert Walpole's observation that every man has a price, may be a
little generalised, yet it cannot be gainsaid that it is not far from truth. Burke cautioned
“Amongst a people generally corrupt, liberty can not last long.” – N.P. Jharia v. State of
M.P., (2007) 7S.C.C. 358 at pp. 360-61 : A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2677: 2007 Cr., L. 3745.
12. Corruption is a major cause of poverty as well as a barrier to over coming it
– It is commonly recognized that corruption; which has become universal phenomenon,
unless kept in, check, can undermine the finest of systems. It eats into the very vitals of
the civic society and directly vitiates the relationship between the citizen and the state,
which in modern times must conform to the status of welfare state. According to
Transparency International Chairman Peter Eigen, “Corruption is major cause of poverty
as well as a barrier to overcoming it. The two scourges feed off each other, locking their
population in cycle of misery. Corruption must be vigorously addressed if aid is to make
a real difference in freeing people from poverty” Despite progress on many fronts,
including the imminent entry into force of the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption, nearly half of the 159 countries included in the Transparency International's

286
Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2005 -scored less than 3 on scale of 10, indicating
severe corruption problem. Among the most corrupt countries, India with a score of 2.9,
occupies 88th position.
According to 'India Corruption Study-2005'; conducted recently by the TI India in
association with the Centre for Media Studies, the problem of corruption in the public
services affecting day-to-day needs of citizens is far more serious than it is being
realized. Common citizens of the country pay a bribe of Rs. 21,068 crore while availing
one of more or the eleven public services in a year. As many as 62 per cent of the citizens
think that corruption is not hearsay and they, in fact, have and first hand experience of
paying a bribe or “using a contact “ to get a job done in a public office. Around three-
fourths of citizens think that the level of corruption in public services has increased
during 2004-05. The users and provides of these public services know what needs to be
done to address the problem, which this, study has brought out.
In fact, corruption’s impact on personal and family life is most dramatic on poor
house-holds since they tend to pay a significantly, larger percentage of their income in
bribes than the persons in higher income groups.
An overwhelming majority of the citizens attribute corruption to the absence of
transparency and accountability in the delivery of public services, criminalisation of
politics and systemic weaknesses in corruption/grievance redressal machinery. Further, it
is perceived more as a result of monstrous greed due to a weak, apathetic and
unaccountable government machinery. The existing anti-corruption institutions are also
not very effective as they are under the control of the politicians, lacking real teeth and
powers, and not having enough strength of officers with impeccable integrity Besides,
these institutions face problems, with regard to paucity of staff and non-filling up of
vacancies, etc. Accordingly, they have named the following seven key factors responsible
for widespread corruption –
 Lack of transparency and accountability in the system.
 Lack of an effective corruption reporting mechanism.
 Lack of honesty in officials, in. the government.
 Acceptance of 'Bribe' as a way of life, custom and culture.
 Ineffective Judiciary.

287
 Poor economic policies.
 Inadequate training and orientation of Government officials.
However, such petty corruption cannot be addressed only by reforms and
adopting technologies although they are the first order of initiatives to be taken. Certain
deterrent punitive action against those indulging in corruption is a 'must'.
Now that technology is being adopted in a big way, it should be feasible to take
some specific action to bring down corruption. That is how the initiatives of TI India in
sponsoring various studies help mobilize civil society. TI India proposes to go to various
sports of the country with the findings of its latest Study titled “India Corruption Study
2005” to sensitize and promote civil society's initiatives.
Citizens' Charters promising certain performance standards on the basis of
“Where to Go, How to Proceed” is a recent initiative in most of the Services. But the
Charter, as it is made out, is neither directly relevant nor are citizens aware of such a
thing, which this Study brings out. In fact, not all concerned even in the public services
know about Citizens Charter's or the promises of service standards made, therein. The
Study-brings out the urgency of activating Citizens' Charters and making them directly
relevant and their existence and provisions being known to the people.
This Study acquires added relevance because of the recently enforced “Right to
Information Act”. Now, with the enforcement of this Act, public utilities and services
shall need to be geared up to increase transparency in decision-making. The next round of
such national surveys could be expected to bring out the extent to which this Act has
helped in the process.
It is important to note that common beliefs about the extent of corruption and the
untrustworthiness of government institutions influence individual decisions to participate
in corrupt activities. While this perceptions may not be an accurate reflection of the
reality of corruption within public institutions, they still affect decision making among
the civilian population. Inconsistencies between public perceptions, and reality may cause
individuals to make choices based on incorrect assumptions, thus fueling the
phenomenon of corruption. Attempts to curb corruption therefore, must be accompanied
by attempts to change public expectations. Without a change in public perceptions,
reform attempts may be unsuccessful.

288
 Further, public utilities and services need to be geared up by introducing possible
alternative avenues to increase transparency in decision-malting and deterrents for
deficient or non-performance. Service delivery can also be improved with simple
initiatives, including introduction of technologies.
According to a Gallup poll, Indians expressed strong concern about further levels
of corruption in their country, with approximately 60 percent believing the situation will
get a lot worse. Looking to prospects for the next three years, the picture is somewhat less
downbeat. India is among the five most pessimistic countries. However, TI India is
optimistic that corruption affecting the common man could be curbed by systematic
changes in governance through introducing transparency, accountability and probity in
administration. Various tools like Citizens' Charters, Right to Information, e-Governance,
Report Cards and Social Audits can be made effective by –
 Creating wide-spread awareness and knowledge about these tools.
 Imparting training to the operative and supervisory staff, and sensitizing them.
 Providing infrastructure and initiative.
 Reducing the hierarchy gap between the officers and the operative staff
developing team spirit.
 Introducing motivation and accountability to force staff to shoulder responsibility.
 Make out of date, complicated and restricted rules and procedures user friendly.
“Complacency is corruption's best friend.” said David Nussbaum, chief executive
of Transparency International. “Signing the document, and taking part the photo
opportunity is not enough. Leaders must now complete the ratification process and focus
on implementation.”
An article on corruption by Achniral R.H. Tahiliani and Dr. S.K. Agarwal,
published in weekly Sahara Time, dated 7th January, 2006, p. 7.
13. Transparency International's 2005 Global Corruption Barometer -
According to Gallup, poll conducted between May and October 2005, it was found that:
 54% Indians believe that corruption affects spheres of their life to some extent
and 25% to a large extent.
 40% people believe that corruption affects business environment to some extent
and 42% to a large extent.

289
 28% people believe that corruption affects political life to some extent and 56% to
a large extent.
 42% people believe that the level of corruption in this country has changed a lot
in the past 3 years.
 57% expect the level of corruption to change a lot in the next 3 years.
 Sector-wise, 99% people perceive that the police is affected by corruption, 98%
political parties, 97% legal system, and 94% utilities like telephone, electricity,
water, etc. and medical services. The least corrupt departments are perceived to be
military (58%) and media (24%).
 On a score of 1 to 5 (1 meaning not at all corrupt, 5 meaning extremely corrupt),
people perceive political parties and police, with a score of 4.7 as most corrupt.
These are followed by Parliament/Legislature (4.4), legal system/judiciary (4.3),
customs (4.1), registry/permit services (4.0), education medical services and tax
revenue (3.8 each).
 Personal experiences of bribery -12% of the respondents said that someone living
in their household paid a bribe in the past 12 months. 70% of the respondents said
that it was directly asked for. The average amount of money paid in bribes by a
household was Rs. 4,600 last year.
 26% said that it was offered to avoid a problem with the authorities, and 17%
reported that the bribe was offered to receive a service to which they were
entitled.
14. Central Vigilance Commission–History of – The Delhi Special Police
Establishment, Act 1946 was enacted for the purpose of constitution of a special force in
Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union Territories, for the
superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other of the
powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the
said offences. Section 3 of the D.S.P.E. Act, 1946 provides that the. Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences
which were to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and Section 6
thereof further provides that the Delhi Special Police Establishment could exercise
powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State with the consent of the Government of that

290
State. Section 4 of the D.S.P.E. Act, 1946, as it then stood, provided, that the
superintendence of the Special Police Establishment shall vest in the Central
Government.
The Central Vigilance Commission was set up by a Central Government by a
resolution dated 11-2-1964. The said resolution, inter alia, provided that in exercise of its
powers and functions, the Central Vigilance Commission would not be subordinate to
any Ministry/Department and though it was attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, it would have the same measure of independence and autonomy as
Union Public Service Commission. The Central Vigilance Commissioner was to be
appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and he could have been
removed or suspended only in the manner provided for the removal or suspension of the
Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission. Subsequently by another resolution
of November, 1995 the resolution of 11.2.1964 was amended and the provisions for the
appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner by the President by warrant under
his hand and seal was deleted, Subsequently in September, 1997 the Central Government
constituted independent Review Committee to suggest measures for strengthening inter-
alia anti-corruption activities as part of its efforts against corruption and the said Review
Committee recommended that the Central Government may consider the question of
conferring statutory status to Central Vigilance Commission. In the meantime it was
noticed that the CBI and other revenue authorities when it came to investigation of cases
against the high and the mighty or the influential and powerful would sometimes develop
cold feet. One of the writ petitions which was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and which ultimately came to be disposed of in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1998 Cri
L.J.1208 : A.I.R. 1998 SC 889 1998 A.I.R. S.C.W. 645, showed that the allegations were
made that all and other revenue authorities has failed to perform their duties and legal
obligations inasmuch as they has failed to investigate matters arising out of seizure of
'Jain diaries', etc. and they had failed to investigate and take the matters to its logical
conclusion and prosecute all persons who were found to have committed the offences and
what was done with a view to protect the persons involved who were influential and
powerful; that the matter disclosed a nexus between crime and corruption at high places
in public life and it posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the

291
nation; that probity in public life, the rule of law and the preservation of democracy
required that the Government agencies be compelled to duly perform their legal
obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against every person involved,
irrespective of where he was placed in the political hierarchy. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, therefore, thought that it was necessary to take measures to ensure permanency in
the remedial effect to prevent revision to inertia of the agencies in such matters. The
Supreme Court further took note of the Vohra Committee report which was appointed by
the Government of India to take stock of all available information about the activities of
crime syndicates/mafia organisations which had developed links with and were being
protected by the Government functionaries and political personalities; and ultimately, the
Supreme Court, inter alia, recommended that the CVC be conferred statutory status;
appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner to be made under the hand and seal of
the President etc.
As a result of the said recommendations, the Central Government promulgated an
Ordinance, namely Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998 and then again the
Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998 and later the bill was
introduced which after having been passed by Lok Sabha it could not be passed by Lok
Sabha as the 12th Lok Sabha was dissolved and ultimately the Central Vigilance
Commission Act, 2003 came to be passed having its object (sic) the constitution of a
Central Vigilance Commission to inquire or cause inquiry to be conducted into the
offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
by certain categories of public servants of the Central Government. Corporations
establishment by or under any Central Act. Government companies, societies and local
authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. The Act, inter alia, replaced Sec. 4 of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946, to read as follows:
4. “Superintendence and administration of Special Police Establishment–
(1) The Superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment insofar as it
relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall vest in the Commission.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), the superintendence of the said

292
 police establishment in all other matters shall vest in the Central Government.”
The administration of the said police establishment shall vest in an officer
appointed in this behalf by the Central Government (hereinafter referred to as the
Director) who shall exercise in respect of that police establishment such of the powers
exercisable by an Inspector General of Police in respect of the police force in a State as
the Central Government may specify in this behalf – Pravin Kumar v. State, 2005 Cr. L.J.
2714 at pp. 2715-17 (Bom.).
15. Trap cases – Guidelines – In the majority of corruption cases before the Court, it
is a single instance of receiving a bribe that has been established through the trap and the
defence capitalises on the argument that “ a man's life and career cannot be destroyed for
an amount of Rs. 500/-. “Experience has shown that is not the novice or the new corner
who gets trapped but it is the official who has become so brazen, so hard boiled, so
ruthless and so cussed and inhuman that nothing will be done without the usual payment
and it is some right thinking person who is so totally disgusted with situation who goes
through the troublesome and personally dangerous procedure of approaching the Anti-
Corruption Department and getting the errant official caught. While 94% of the
corruption prosecutions emanate from trap cases, the investigating authorities have been
consistently overlooking the fact that from the point of view of the law and public interest
the background of the accused relating particularly to the following to two very important
factors needs investigation:
(a) as to whether the accused has been habitually committing these illegalities; and
(b) what are, the assets disproportionate to known sources of income that the accused
possesses either personally or through various benami and clandestine holdings?
This most vital aspect of the investigation has been lacking in every single one of
the corruption prosecutions in this country and it is a little difficult for the Court to accept
that this is a lapse. The maxim that is current is that you make money through corrupt
means and you use that ill-gotten wealth to buy your way out of trouble. In a case where
a revenue official is trapped for having demanded a bribe of Rs. 3000/- and where in fact,
that official has amassed crores of rupees tampering with land records and aiding real
estate rackets running into hundreds of crores, the entire complexion of the case gets
altered if proper incisive research is undertaken along these lines and the true facts come

293
before the trial Court. It is, therefore, necessary that the Lokayukta and the State
Government issue immediate directions to all investigating authorities handling
corruption cases including the ones where the investigations are pending to very carefully
investigate the past conduct of the accused and more importantly, the assets
disproportionate to known source of income that have been accumulated. This direction
be given immediate effect to as it is very certain that it will have a chilling effect on all
other like-minded persons but will also ensure that the failure rate in these cases comes
down to zero.
Simultaneously, as a deterrent, the State Government would be advised to ensure
that all its employees irrespective of what rank they belong to are required to file a
statement for assets on affidavit which covers the employee and the family and which
will include assets both movable and immovable standing in other names, and that such a
statement, be made compulsory on an annual basis. This rule should be made compulsory
for the Government as also to all public institutions such as the public Corporations and
what is more important is that the statement be scrutinised and verified by the Vigilance
Department on a selective basis so that the impression is not created that false statements
can be submitted With impunity. This procedure if properly enforced would act as check
on corrupt practices which generate huge amounts of black money which in turn is
converted into assets. These returns will be of immense assistance in the investigation of
corruption prosecutions. It will, however, be necessary that these declarations be verified
and appropriate disciplinary action and prosecutions be ordered in every case where a
false declaration has been filed. – K.M. Kumaraswamy v. State, 2002 Cr. L.J. 3195 at p.
3200 (Kant.).
16. Term “Office” – Meaning and scope – Regarding the meaning of the word
'office' the Supreme Court, in a case, approved the observation of Lord Wright in
Macmillan v. Guest, 1942 AC 561 to the following effect. The word 'office' is of
indefinite context. Its various meaning cover 4 columns of New English dictionary but I
take the following “A position or place to which certain duties are attached especially of
a more or less public character”. – Smt. Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, A.I.R.
1970 SC 694; see also Champalal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1971 MP 88 –
office means – A position or status by virtue of which he becomes charged with the

294
performance of certain duties private or public.
Oxford Dictionary defined the term “office” as position with duties attached to it,
place of authority or trust or service especially of public kind, tenure of official position
especially that of Minister of State.
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary defines “office”, “inter alia”, as a
function or duty; settled duty or employment; a position imposing certain duties or giving
a right to exercise an employment; possession of a post in the Government.
The Encyclopedia of the law of England defines office as “a right to exercise a
Public or Private Employment and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it.
Now we will discuss the relevant provisions only of the prevention of corruption
Act 1988 relating to the topic in had of research. Particularly what is illegal satisfaction
other than legal remuneration and other related dimensions of this malafide intention &
Public servants : Section 7 of this act of 1988 deals with illegal gratification.
Taking Gratification other than legal Remuneration (S. 7 of Prev. of
Consumption Act)
1. Previous Law and Modifications made therein – Section 8 corresponds to Sec.
161 Indian Penal Code with some modifications. Sec. 161 I.P.C. read as follows:
“161. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in
respect of official act – Whoever, 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 for bearing to do any official act
or for showing or forbearing to show, in 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 or any State Government or Parliament
or the-Legislature of any State with any local authority, Corporation or
Government Company referred to-in Sec.21 or with any public servant, as such,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation – “Expecting to be a public servant”--If a person not expecting to be
in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in

295
office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty
of the offence defined in this section.
“Gratification” – The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary
gratifications, or to gratifications estimable m money.
“Legal remuneration”–The words legal remuneration” are not restricted to
remuneration, which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration
which he is permitted by the Government, which he serves, to accept.
“A motive or reward fop doing” – A person who receives a gratification as a
motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not
done, comes within these words.
Illustrations
(a) A, a Munsif obtains from Z, a banker, a situation in Z's bank for A's brother as a
reward to A for deciding a cause in favour of Z. A, has committed the offence
defined in this section.
(b) A, holding the office of counsel in a Foreign State, accepts a lakh of rupees from
the Minister of the State. It does not appear that A accepted this sum as a motive
or reward for doing or forbearing to do any particular official act, or for rendering
or attempting to render any particular service to that State with the Government of
India. But it does appear that A accepted the sum as a motive or reward for
generally showing favour in the exercise of his official functions to that State. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.
(c) A, a public servant, induces Z erroneously to believe that A's influence with the
Government has obtained a title for Z and thus induces Z to give A money as a
reward for this service. A has committed the offence defined in this section “
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code 1861 modified into Sec. 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 as under:
(a) The word 'Government Company referred to in Sec 21’ replaced with words
'Government Company referred to in Clause (c) of Sec.2.
(b) The words 'as such' are omitted.
(c) The words 'whether named or otherwise are added after the words' 'with any
public servant'.

296
(d) The word 'punished' replaced by the word 'punishable'.
(e) he words 'with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine, or with both' are replaced by the word 'with imprisonment
which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine'. Thus the maximum sentence for this offence has been
raised from 3 years to 5 years and minimum sentence of six months has been
made compulsory.
(f) Illustration (c) to Sec. 161 has been incorporated as explanation (e) to this section.
Illustrations (a) and (b) are omitted.
2. Section 7 of PC. Act is placed on higher pedestal than that of Sec.161, I.P.C –
Section 161, 1.P.C. read thus:
“161. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect
of an official act – Whoever, 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 or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State, or with any local authority corporation or Government
company referred to in Section 21 or with any public servant, as such shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both.”
Section 7 of the Act of 1988 read thus:
“7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of
an official act – Wherever being or expecting to bear a Public Servant, accepts or
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any 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

297
 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 (e) of Section 2, or with any Public Servant whether named
or otherwise shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than
six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
A reading of both the Sections would indicate that the allegations made against
the appellant would have attracted Section 161, I.P.C. But it is difficult to accept the
further contention of the learned High Court government pleader that no prejudice is
caused to the accused as the charge has not been framed under Section 161, I.P.C. The
punishment prescribed for an offence under Section 161, I.P.C. is imprisonment of either
description which may extend to 3 years or with fine, or with both. In the case of an-
offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, the offender is liable to be punished with
imprisonment which shall not be less than six months and which may extend to five years
and also liable to fine. Section 7 is placed on a higher pedestal than that of Section 161,
I.P.C. Section 7 of the Act of 1988 while enhancing the period of punishment to 5 years
stipulates that the offender shall be compulsorily imprisoned for a period of not less than
six months. In the instant case this aspect was taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge
while sentencing the accused for imprisonment for a period of two years. The offence for
which a person is sought to be convicted must have been in force at the time when the act
with which he is charged was alleged to have been committed. A person therefore cannot
be convicted for an act which was not an .offence when that act was committed. Section 7
of the Act of 1988 was not in force at the time of appellant accused is alleged to have
demand and accepted illegal gratification. Contravention of a provision relating to
fundamental right cannot be condoned. The trial held against the appellant therefore is
opposed to Article 20(1) of the Constitution and because of this fundamental defect, the
whole trial is vitiated. In such a situation the only way out is to order retrial invoking
Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. – R.S. Kalakapur v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Cr.L.J.2696 at
pp. 2697-98 (Kant.) : 1994 (2) Crimes 420: 1994 (2) Kar.L.J. 505.
As laid down in Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. Delhi Administration, 1962 (1)
Cr.L.J.203 (S.C):A.I.R.1962 S.C.195; Banu Prasad Hari Prasad Dev v. State of Gujarat,
1968 L.J. 505 (S.C.) and Chaturdas Bhagvandas Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1976 Cr.L.J.

298
1180 : A.I.R. 1976 SC 1497, to constitute the offence under Section 161, I.P.C. it is
enough if the public servant who accepts the gratification takes it by inducing a belief
that he can render assistance to giver with any other public servant and the giver gives the
gratification under that belief.
The reading of the above decision would make it clear that the accused even if he
is not in a position to do the official favour, he is liable to be punished under Section 161,
I.P.C. if the evidence is available to show that he demanded and accepted illegal
gratification making the bribe giver to believe that he could do the official favour. – State
v. K.S. Subratranian, 2002 Cr.L.J. 4027 at p. 4032 (Mad.).
Mere recovery of certain money from the possession of the accused without the
proof of demand made by him or on his behalf or on behalf of some person to whom an
official favour was to be shown, is not sufficient to establish the guilt.
The ingredients of the charge under Section 161, IPC are:
(1) That the accused was a public servant;
(2) That he must be shown to have obtained from any person any gratification; and
(3) The gratification should be other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward
for doing or forbearing to do any official act for showing or forbearing to show, in
the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to the person.
In the present case, the second ingredient is not there i.e. the very existence of
second ingredient is not established beyond reasonable doubt. According to the third
ingredient, the gratification should be in exercise of his official function for showing
favour. In the present case, it has been established by evidence on record that the accused
was not the person who could have extended any favour for doing any official act as he
was not even the concerned clerk, for receiving the application and the, receiving of the
application could not be said to bring any favour in discharge of official act. He was not
the scholarship sanctioning authority – Ram Krishna Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
1997 Cr.L.J. 3889 at p. 3892-93 (M.P.).
To sustain the charge under Section 161 I.P.C. (since omitted from the I.P.C. and
incorporated in Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (1988 Act for short)
with certain modifications) against the appellant the prosecution was required to prove
that (i) the appellant was a public servant at the material time; (ii) the appellant accepted

299
or obtained from P.W.9 a gratification other than legal remuneration; and (iii) the
gratification was for exempting the hospital in question from its liability to pay statutory
provident fund contributions.—C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India, 1997
Cr.L.J.739 at p. 741 (S.C.) : A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 551 : 1997 (1) Crimes 75 1997 S.C.C.(Cr)
654: 1997 (1) K.ET. 544 (S.C.).
For the offence under Section 163, I.P.C. On a plain reading of the said Section it
is manifest that to convict an accused for the above offence the following, ingredients are
required to be proved.
(i) The accused accepted or agreed to accept; obtained or attempted to obtain for
himself or anyone on his behalf a gratification;
(ii) The gratification must be as a motive or reward to induce a public servant by the
exercise of personal influence :
(a) to do or to forbear to do any official act, or
(b) to show in exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour, or
(c) to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with
the Central Government or State Government or with any public servant,
as such.
The gist of the offence, therefore, is that the person arraigned must accept the
gratification to include a public servant by the exercise of his personal influence to do
any of the acts mentioned in the Section. It is the positive case of the prosecution, as
testified by P.W. 1, that it was Al and A2 who initially demanded the money from him
(P.W.1) and in terms of an arrangement that he had with Al and under his instruction and
direction that he paid the money to Al. It was not the appellant who struck the deal and
received the money to induce Al and A2 to show some favour to Seema Guest House and
its proprietor. On the contrary, it was Al and A2 who had struck the deal and the
appellant was the recipient of the money in terms of an arrangement which he had
(obviously) entered into with Al and A2. By no stretch of imagination, therefore, can it be
said that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Sec.163 I.P.C. of Court the
acceptance of the money by the appellant from P. W.1 for handing over the same to Al or
A2 would certainly constitute an abetment of the offences allegedly committed by Al and
A2; but then this aspect of the matter need nor detain us : firstly, because, such as not the

300
charge framed against the appellant and secondly, because, Al and A2 stand acquired of
the offences alleged against them – Mahendra Singh Chotelat Blifirgad v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1998 S.C. 601 at p. 602.
3. Requirement of Section 7 – The following requirements have to be satisfied in
order to charge a person under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act :
(i) The accused at the time of offence, was or expected to be, a public servant;
(ii) That he accepted, or obtained, or agreed to attempt or attempted to obtain from
some person a gratification;
(iii) That such gratification was not illegal remuneration due to him; and
(iv) That he accepted the gratification in question as a motive or reward for (a) doing
or forbearing to do any official act;
(b) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of
his official functions;
(c) rendering or attempting to render any service, disservice to someone, with the
Central Government of any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of
any State or with any public servant.
The section speaks of “attempt to obtain a bribe as doing is itself an offence. A
mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence
under the Act.”
In the present case, from the facts stated hereinabove it is clear that the case of the
prosecution and the statements of the independent witness and of the compainant are that
the petitioner not only demanded the illegal gratification but he also accepted the same,
and thereafter, when the CBI Personnel tried to nab him he managed to escape. Which
definitely comes under the purview of the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and such evidence collected during investigation are certainly sufficient
for framing of charge against the petitioner. – Paras Nath Sahu v. State of Jharkhand,
2006 Cr.L.J. 328 at p. 330 (Jhar.).
One of the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the new P.C. Act (equivalent of
Section 161 of the I.P.C.) that Rs.200/- was received by the accused-appellant from
Madhukar Ingole (P.W.1) as gratification as a motive or reward for effecting entries in
the mutations register in favour of Shanker and his brothers, has not been proved beyond

301
reasonable doubt and the presumption drawn in favour of the prosecution has been
rebutted, dislodged and displaced by the accused-appellant for the offence under Section
161 of the I.P.C. as it then was) cannot sustained. From the evidence which has been
discussed above, it could also be not reasonably held that the accused-appellant has
obtained the money of Rs. 200/- from Madhukar Ingule by using some corrupt or illegal
means or otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant and the charge against
the accused appellant that he by corrupt or illegal means on 16-5-1986 at 16.45 hours
demanded and accepted Rs.200/- as Patwari from Madhukar Khushalrao Ingole by
abusing his position as public servant and obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage of
Rs.200/- cannot be sustained. The offence under Sec. 13(c), (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of
the new P.C. Act corresponding to old Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) is also not proved
and the conviction of the accused under the said section also cannot be sustained –
Suryabhan v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr.L.J. 107 at pp. 114-15 (Born.).
Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not,
would be covered by Section 7 of the Act. But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification
is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section
13(1)(d) of the Act. The act alleged against the respondent, of demanding and receiving
illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and under Section
13(1)(d) of the Act. The offence being a single transaction, but falling under two different
sections, the offender cannot be liable for double penalty. But the High Court committed
an error in holding that a single act of receiving an illegal gratification, where there was
demand and acceptance, cannot be an offence both under Sec. 7 and under Sec. 13(1)(d)
of the Act. As the offence is one which falls under two different sections providing
different punishment, the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment
than the court could award to the person for any one of the two offences. In this case,
minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under
Sec. 13(1)(d) is one year. If an offence falls under both Secs. 7 and 13(1)(d) and the court
wants to award only the minimum punishment, then the punishment would be one year –
State v. Parthiben, (2007)1 S.C.C.(Cr) 520 at p. 525.
In Sita Ram v, State of Rajasthan, 1975 Cr.L.J. 1224 : A.I.R. 1975 SC 1432, story
of demand of bribe from the complainant should be proved. The main ingredient of the

302
charge under Section 161, IPC with reference to the facts of the case are one that the
accused was a public servant, secondly he must be shown to have obtained from any
person any gratification and thirdly, the gratification should be 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 the person. In the instant case it has not been proved at all that there was any
motive of obtaining any remuneration or legal remuneration since nothing was required
to be done to confer Bhumiswami right as in that right Patta was already issued in 1981.
In the present case the evidence of acceptance of illegal gratification is highly doubtful as
the money was recovered from the bag which was lying on the cot and it was possible to
plant the money in the same by the complainant himself and there was sufficient time for
him to do so, though the defence has tried to submit that the house was unlocked from the
outside and the complainant has entered the house in the absence of Naib Tehsildar. Even
if defence version is discarded, it was very much possible for the complainant to plant the
money in the bag. In case of Salim Khan Sardarkhan v. State of Gujarat, 1985
Cr.L.J.1901:A.I.R.1986 S.C, 307:1986 All. L.J.651, where police constable was put to
trial for accepting bribe, the trial Court accepted the version of defence that without his
knowledge the currency notes were put in his pocket. High Court reversed the finding on
an appeal. The Supreme Court, has held, that the trial Court has rightly accepted the
defence that the currency notes were put in his pocket: it was further held that the High
Court obviously lost sight of the fact. that the appellant may have lost his agility and in
the peculiar circumstances the notes could. have been inserted without the appellant
knowing it. – Khanji Prasad Ladiya v. State of M.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 4400 at p. 4407 (M.P.).
It has been submitted by referring to a judgment of the Apex Court in Sadashiv
Mahadeo Yavaluje & Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe v. State of Maharashtra, 1990
Cr.L.J.600:A.I.R. 1990 S.C: 287, wherein the Apex Court has granted acquittal to an
accused under Sec. 161 read with Sec.165-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under
Sec. 5(1)(d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That case relates to acquittal
being granted after full-ledged trial being held. The facts of that case is totally different
from this case. Two constables were trapped regarding taking of bribe. One constable had
asked the prosecutor to pay up the bribe money to another constable who shall, in turn,

303
pay to the said constable. But one of the constables who was not found to have accepted
the bribe money, had been acquitted by the trial court. The other constable who had been
trapped for reaching the bribe Money, had been acquitted by the. Apex Court on, the plea
that, nothing could be; related in evidence as to the money found in possession of the
convicted constable, was towards the bribe to be paid to the other .constable. The present
case is-totally different from the factual aspect of the case. Here, according to the
prosecution case, the petitioners were physically present and the money was taken by the
third accused Naresh Dwivedi from one of the petitioners and then placed over the table
of the Deputy Commissioner. So, abetment and conspiracy was there, prima facie, against
the petitioners. – Gopal Krishna Saran v.5tate of Bihar, 2000 Cr.L.J. 3609 at p. 3613
(Pat).
4. The menace of 'corruption is a cancerous epidemic – In the instant case, there
is strong prima facie evidence against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7, 13
(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.129- B, Indian Penal Code.
There is statement of the complainant who has described his plight in detail. There is
evidence that when the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau reached the office of the
petitioner, the petitioner was standing at the table where the alleged bribe money was
discovered. The said amount of Rs.4,000/- was discovered on the petitioner's fingers were
washed, the water turned slightly opaque and pinkish is a clear-cut indication that he had
handled the money which was recovered with phenolphthalein powder. When the
petitioner was caught red handed, he could not give any cogent justification for the
amount found on his table. Although the money was not recovered from his person, but it
was recovered from the table where he was standing. Hence, it was recovered for all
practical purposes from his possession. The menace of corruption is a cancerous
epidemic which has tenticles in the far nooks and corners of this country It is corruption
which is preventing this country, from emerging as a developed country. At least those
who are caught red handed, they should be asked to face the trial squarely. Neither the
law nor the Courts comes to rescue of those who abuse and violate the sanctity of law –
Jairam Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cr.L.J.2816 at p.2818 (Raj.).
The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread
everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of

304
corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country.
Large-scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on
that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4
S.CC.14: 1997 S.C.C.(L&S) 909, corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes,
the vital veins of the body, politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service-would
improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the ,duty
diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the
duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds
around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.—State
of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2007)1 S.C.C.(Cr) 1 at p. 9.
5. Word “accept” – Meaning of – The meaning of the word “accept” as per Oxford
English Dictionary, Vol. 1, page 70 is “to take or receive (a thing offered) willingly, or
with consenting mind; to take formally (what is offered) with contemplation of its
consequences and obligations.” On the other hand, the word “obtain” as per Oxford
English Dictionary, Vol. X, page 669) would mean (a) “to come into possession or
enjoyment of (something) by one's own effort, or by request; (b) to procure or gain, as the
result of purpose and effort, hence, generally, to acquire, get”. Thus both the words
“accept” and “obtain” signify an active conduct on the part of the person in accepting or
obtaining a thing. Thus if some thing is thrust into the pocket of a person without his
consent and without a request from his side it would not be an acceptance or obtainment
of the said thing on the part of the person in whose pocket the same is inserted or thrust,
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.—L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 1997 Cr.L.J.2559 at p.2574 (Cal.):1997 (4) Crimes 1.
In Sections 7 and 13(1) (a) and (b) of the Act, the legislature has specifically used
the word “accepts” or “obtains”. As against this, there is departure in the language used
in sub-section (1)(d) of Section 13 and it has omitted the word “accepts” and has
emphasized the word “obtains”. Further, the ingredient of sub-clause (i) is that by corrupt
or illegal means, a public servant obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
under sub-clause (ii), he obtains such thing by abusing his position as a public servant;
and sub-clause (iii) contemplates that while holding office as a public servant, he obtains
for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage Without any public interest.

305
Therefore, for convicting the person under Section 13(1)(4), there must be evidence on
record that the accused “obtained” for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing
or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a
public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest.
Supreme Court interpreted similar provisions under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 in Ram Krishna v. State of Delhi, A.I.R.1956 SC 476:1956 SCR 182:1956
Cr.L.J.837. In the said case, the Court dealt with similar clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 5 and held that there must be proof that the public servant adopted corrupt or
illegal means and thereby obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing
or pecuniary advantage. The Court observed: (SCR p. 188) :
“In one sense, this is no doubt true but it does not follow that there is no
overlapping of offences. We have primarily to look at the language employed and
give effect to it. One class of cases might arise when corrupt or illegal means are
adopted or-pursued by the public servant to gain for himself a pecuniary
advantage. The word “obtains” on which much stress was laid does not eliminate
the idea of acceptance of what is given or offered to be given, though it connotes
also an element of effort on the part of the receiver. One may accept money that is
offered, or solicit payment of a bribe, or extort the bribe by threat or coercion; in
each case, he obtains a pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a public
servant”.

306