| Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Parliament of India | |
| |
| Citation | Act No. 49 of 1988 |
| Territorial extent | The whole of India Applies also to all citizens of India outside India. |
| Enacted by | Parliament of India |
| Enacted | 9 September 1988 |
| Status: In force (amended) | |
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India. [1]
The act consists of 5 chapters spread across 31 sections. [2]
This chapter details the title, territorial extent and basic definitions under the law, etc. Two of the main definitions are of "public servant" and "undue advantage". Following are some sections:
Power To Appoint Special Judges: The Central and the State Government is empowered to appoint Special Judges by placing a Notification in the Official Gazette, to try the following offences: · Any offence punishable under this Act. · Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified under the Act. The qualification for the Special Judge is that he should be or should have been a Session Judge or an Additional Session Judge or Assistant Session Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The offences punishable under this act can be tried by special Judges only. When trying any case, the special Judge is empowered to try any offence other than an offence punishable under this act, with which the accused may be charged at the same trial. It is recommended that the special Judge should hold the trial daily. [3]
Case Trial By Special Judges: Every offence mentioned in Section 3(1)shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed. When trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence other than what is specified in S. 3, which the accused may be, under Cr.P.C. be charged at the same trial. The Special Judge has to hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis. However, while complying with foretasted, it is to be seen that the Cr.P.C. is not bifurcated.
The following are the powers of the Special Judge: He may take cognizance of the offences without the accused being commissioned to him for trial. In trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Cr.P.C. for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate. he may with a view to obtain the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence, tender pardon to such person provided that he would make full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge or in respect to any person related to the offence.
Except as for S. 2(1), the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge. Hence, the court of the Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor. The provisions of secs. 326 and 475of the Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge and for purpose of the said provisions, a Special Judge shall be deemed to be a magistrate.
A Special Judge may pass a sentence authorized by law for the punishment of the offence of which a person is convicted. A Special Judge, while trying any offence punishable under the Act, shall exercise all powers and functions exercised by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
Power to try summarily: Where a Special Judge tries any offence specified in Sec. 3(1), alleged to have been committed by a public servant in relation to the contravention of any special order referred to in Sec.12-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or all orders referred to in sub-section (2)(a) of that section then the special judge shall try the offence in a summarily way and the provisions of s. 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said code shall as far as may be apply to such trial. Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section this shall be lawful for the Special Judge to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. However, when at the commencement of or in the course of a summary trial it appears to the Special Judge that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or it is undesirable to try the case summarily, the Special judge shall record all order to that effect and thereafter recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to hear and re-hear the case in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the said code for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Moreover, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any case tried summarily under this section in which the Special Judge passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month and of fine not exceeding Rs. 2000.
The following are the offences under the PCA along with their punishments:- Obtaining an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly, etc., and if the public servant is found guilty, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Investigation shall be done by a police officer not below the rank of:
If a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorized by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may investigate such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of First class or make arrest therefor without a warrant.
Provided further that an offence referred to sec 13.1.e shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Any such investigation without the order of a SP or above rank will be dismissed. [4]
As the Prevention of Corruption Act saw limited success in preventing corruption in Government departments and prosecuting and punishing public servants involved in corrupt practices, an amendment was enacted (Amendment Act) and brought into force on 26 July 2018. The Amendment Act attempted to bring the Prevention of Corruption Act in line with United Nations Convention against Corruption 2005, which was ratified by India in 2011. [1] [5] [6]
The terms “gratification other than legal remuneration” and “valuable thing” are being replaced by the term “undue advantage”. The bill, therefore, redefines the offense of accepting bribes as “obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person an undue advantage, intending that in consequence a public duty would be performed improperly or dishonestly, either by himself or by another public servant is guilty of offense under section 7 and shall be imprisoned for a term of 3 to 7 years. [7]
In addition to treating bribe-giving as an offense, section 9 specifically provides for an offense by a commercial organization if any person associated with the commercial organization gives or promises to give any undue advantage to a public servant to obtain or retain business or an advantage in conduct of business. Such a person/commercial organization shall be punishable with a fine, quantum of which is not prescribed in the act. [8]
The offense of criminal misconduct specified in section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is being substituted by a new section restricting the criminal misconduct to dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of any property entrusted to the public servant or if the public servant intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office. Thus the scope of criminal misconduct has been narrowed in the amendment and the threshold to establish the offense has been increased. [9]
The amendment extends the protection of requirement of prior approval to investigation prior to prosecution. Under the new Section 17A, except when a public official is caught ‘redhanded', the police cannot begin a probe, without the approval of the relevant authority, of any public official. Earlier, this was limited to protecting joint secretaries and above. The amendment has created additional hurdles for investigation and prosecution. The amendment provides for the requirement to obtain prior sanction from appropriate Government to initiate a probe on serving as well as former public servants. While the intent was to prevent victimisation of honest officers, the amendment seemingly strengthens the shield available to officials accused of corruption. [10]
The new Section 18A also introduces a provision for special courts to confiscate and attach the property acquired through corrupt practices. [11]
To ensure speedy justice, the Amendment Act now prescribes that the courts shall endeavor to complete the trial within 2 (two) years. This period can be extended by 6 (six) months at a time and up to a maximum of 4 (four) years in aggregate subject to proper reasons for the same being recorded. [11]
Punishment has been increased from a minimum imprisonment term of 6 (six) months to 3 (three) years, and from a maximum of 5 (five) years to 7 (seven) years, with or without fine. [12]
The telecom spectrum, which is allotted to private players through the spectrum auction, was allotted by the UPA government at throwaway prices to companies through corrupt and illegal means. On 21 December 2017, the special court in New Delhi after thorough examination of the case and hearing what the CBI had to say, acquitted all accused in the 2G spectrum case including prime accused A Raja and Kanimozhi. The court ruled that this case was baseless. [13]
The CBI recently arrested the Medical Council of India's former president Ketan Desai and three others under this act, for allegedly accepting a bribe to permit Patiala-based Gyan Sagar Medical College to recruit a fresh batch of students without having an adequate infrastructure. [14]
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.
A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.
A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.
Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group is about to start an act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot. In England, the offence was abolished in 1986, but it exists in other countries.
The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1828, incorporating subsequent statutes.
False accounting is a legal term for a type of fraud, considered a statutory offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The Malicious Damage Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to malicious damage from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation Act, the Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1827, incorporating subsequent statutes.
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament of India to prevent atrocities and hate crimes against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In popular usage, including in parliamentary debates and in the judgements of the Supreme Court of India, this law is referred to as the SC/ST Act. It is also referred to as the 'Atrocities Act', POA, and PoA.
The Revised Penal Code contains the general penal laws of the Philippines. First enacted in 1930, it remains in effect today, despite several amendments thereto. It does not comprise a comprehensive compendium of all Philippine penal laws. The Revised Penal Code itself was enacted as Act No. 3815, and some Philippine criminal laws have been enacted outside of the Revised Penal Code as separate Republic Acts.
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is an Act of the Parliament of India which prohibits the desecration of or insult to the country's national symbols, including the national flag, national emblem, national anthem, national motto, the constitution, and the map of India.
Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the United Kingdom, and if a polygamous marriage is performed, the already-married person may be guilty of the crime of bigamy under section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Burglary is a statutory offence in England and Wales.
Under Dutch law, moord (murder) is the intentional and premeditated killing of another person. Murder is punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which is the longest prison sentence the law will allow for, unless the sentence is commuted or pardoned by the Sovereign of the Netherlands. However, this happens and few appeals to the King for clemency have ever been successful.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.
The Thuggee and Dacoity Suppression Acts, 1836–48 in British India under East India Company rule were a series of legal acts that outlawed thugee—a practice in North and Central India involving robbery and ritualized murder and mutilation on highways—and dacoity, a form of banditry prevalent in the same region, and prescribed punishment for the same.
Assault with intent to resist arrest is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The Perjury Act 1911 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates the offence of perjury and a number of similar offences.
The Railways Act, 1989 is an Act of the Parliament of India which regulates all aspects of rail transport. The Act came into force in 1989, replacing the Railways Act of 1890. The Act provides in detail the legislative provisions regarding railway zones, construction and maintenance of works, passenger and employee services.
The Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted into the Indian Penal Code 1860 by the Criminal Law amendment Act 1983 by the Parliament of India to prevent social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence. The law provides for up to two years imprisonment with or without fine for those who reveal the identity of victims of sexual abuse in public. The law has been amended subsequently to add more sections of the Indian Penal Code under its purview.