Corruption And Bribery Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act
🏛️ I. Introduction to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA)
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is India’s principal legislation for combating corruption among public servants. It consolidates earlier laws such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and provisions from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to public servant misconduct.
After the 2018 Amendment, the Act was aligned with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which India ratified in 2011.
⚖️ II. Key Definitions and Concepts
1. Public Servant (Section 2(c))
A public servant includes:
Government employees
Officers in local authorities
Judges, arbitrators, and others performing public duty
Employees of government corporations and companies
2. Bribery (Sections 7 and 8)
Section 7: A public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration for performing or forbearing an official act.
Section 8: Penalizes any person who gives or promises to give undue advantage to a public servant.
3. Criminal Misconduct (Section 13)
Earlier, Section 13 defined “criminal misconduct” as including possession of disproportionate assets, abuse of position, and obtaining a pecuniary advantage.
After the 2018 amendment, “criminal misconduct” is now limited mainly to illicit enrichment and misappropriation of property entrusted to a public servant.
4. Presumption of Guilt (Section 20)
Once it is proved that a public servant has accepted a bribe, the court shall presume it was accepted as a reward or motive for a corrupt act unless the contrary is proved.
💰 III. Essential Ingredients of Bribery under PCA
Demand for illegal gratification — Must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Acceptance of the gratification — Mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Proof of motive or reward — It must be linked to the performance or non-performance of an official duty.
⚖️ IV. Detailed Case Laws
1. C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin (2009) 3 SCC 779
Facts:
The accused, a public servant, was caught in a trap by the CBI for allegedly accepting a bribe. The money was recovered from his possession, but there was no direct evidence proving that he demanded or accepted it as a bribe.
Issue:
Whether mere recovery of tainted money is sufficient to convict a public servant under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non (essential condition) for constituting an offence.
Mere possession or recovery of currency notes without proof of demand and acceptance is not sufficient.
The presumption under Section 20 arises only when the demand and acceptance of gratification are proved.
Principle Established:
👉 Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe money is mandatory for conviction.
2. P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152
Facts:
A government official was accused of demanding ₹5000 as a bribe for issuing a fitness certificate. The complainant died before trial, leaving only recovery evidence and testimonies of witnesses.
Held:
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.
In the absence of proof of demand, conviction cannot stand.
Recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without establishing demand.
Principle Established:
👉 Demand is the heart of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d).
3. Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi (2016) 3 SCC 108
Facts:
A Junior Engineer was trapped while accepting ₹700 as a bribe for certifying construction work. The defense argued that the money was thrust upon him without consent.
Held:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that demand, acceptance, and recovery must all be proved together.
However, once acceptance is proved, the presumption under Section 20 applies.
The accused must then give a plausible explanation to rebut the presumption.
Principle Established:
👉 Once acceptance is established, burden shifts to the accused to rebut presumption under Section 20.
4. State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi (2018) 9 SCC 242
Facts:
A government servant was caught accepting ₹10,000. The accused argued that he was framed and that no demand was made.
Held:
The Court reiterated that both demand and acceptance must be proved.
However, if the circumstances strongly indicate acceptance (such as recovery with phenolphthalein test turning positive, corroborated with witness testimony), it can be sufficient to invoke presumption under Section 20.
Principle Established:
👉 Circumstantial evidence supported by scientific tests can prove acceptance.
5. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 64
Facts:
Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed a petition challenging the delay in granting sanction to prosecute a Minister (in the 2G spectrum case) under the PCA.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that grant or refusal of sanction under Section 19 must be done within three months, extendable by one additional month if legal consultation is necessary.
Delay in sanction cannot be used to shield corrupt officials.
Principle Established:
👉 Timely sanction for prosecution is crucial to ensure accountability under the PCA.
🧩 V. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Leading Case |
|---|---|
| Demand is essential for conviction | P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015) |
| Mere recovery is not enough | C.M. Girish Babu (2009) |
| Presumption under Section 20 applies only after proof of acceptance | Krishan Chander (2016) |
| Circumstantial evidence + phenolphthalein test can prove guilt | State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Joshi (2018) |
| Sanction for prosecution must be granted promptly | Subramanian Swamy (2012) |
📚 VI. Conclusion
The Prevention of Corruption Act aims to create a robust legal framework to combat bribery and abuse of office by public servants.
However, the judiciary has consistently emphasized fair trial safeguards—particularly the requirement of proof of demand and acceptance—to prevent misuse.
The 2018 amendment further broadened the scope by criminalizing bribe-giving and emphasizing corporate liability, ensuring accountability on both sides of a corrupt transaction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments