Short Summary of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 India

The Prevention of Corruption Act came into force in September 1988.

It consolidated the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1947, some sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure
Code, and the Criminal Law Act, 1952.

The sole idea was to bring all relevant provisions in a single Act.
Finding that bribery and corruption among public servants had
considerably increased during and after the Second World War and
many unscrupulous officers had amassed huge wealth, and the
existing provisions of the IPC and the CrPC were inadequate to tackle
this problem, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was passed.

The 1947 Act declared such corrupt acts offences as taking bribe,
misappropriation, obtaining a pecuniary advantage, possessing assets
dis-appropriate to income, and abusing official position. However, the
authority

for

prosecution

was

vested

only

in

the

department

authorities and not in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The 1988 Act enlarged the scope of the term public servant and included a large number of employees within its ambit.

Besides the employees of the central government and the union

territories,

the employees of public undertakings,

the employees of nationalised banks,

office-bearers of cooperative societies of the central and the state

government receiving financial aid,

chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or

Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection
committee

employees

of

the

University

Grants

Commission

(UGC),

vice-

chancellors, professors, and scientists in institutions receiving financial aid from the central or state governments or even from the local
authorities have all been declared as public servants.

However, MPs and MLAs, even though performing public duties, have
been kept out of the ambit of the Act.

The Act covers all the corrupt acts as covered by the 1947 Act,
(bribe, misappropriation, obtaining pecuniary advantage, possessing
assets disproportionate to income, etc.). The Act extends to whole of
India except Jammu and Kashmir and applies to all Indian citizens,
whether living in the country or outside it.

If the offence against the public servant is proved in the courts, it is

punishable with imprisonment of not less than 6 months but extending
to a maximum period of 5 years. Six months imprisonment is thus
mandatory and the courts have no discretion in this regard.

If public servant is found committing offence habitually, he is to be

punished with imprisonment of not less than two years but not more
than seven years, and also a fine.

M.L.A. /M.P. is a public servant ?

In Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa(1993 Crl. L.J. 3604.)
The Court held that an M.L.A., is not a public servant under Section 21 of
the Indian Penal Code, but he comes within the purview of sub-clause (viii)
of clause(c) of Section 2 of the 1988 P.C.Act,1988 as held by the High Court
of Orissa, an M.L.A. holds an office and performs public duty . In the
appeal, the Supreme Court proceeded assuming that M.L.A. is a public
servant.

In a later decision in the case of

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State

(C.B.I.),( 1998 Crl. L.J.2930. ) a five Judge bench of the Apex Court laid down
that a Member of Parliament holds an office and by virtue of such office he
is required or authorized to perform duties and such duties are in the nature
of public duties. An M.P. would therefore fall within the ambit of sub-clause
(viii) of clause(c) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even
though there is no authority who can grant sanction for his prosecution
under section 19(1) of the Act. Sanction is not necessary for the court to
take cognizance of the offences and the prosecuting agency shall, before
filing a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and
15 of the Act against an M.P. in a criminal court, obtain the permission of
the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha as the case
may be.

Minister is a public servant?

In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India:1979 Crl.L.J.773: AIR 1979 SC. 898)

The Supreme Court held that a Minister, Prime Minister and Chief Minister
inclusive, is decidedly a public servant in terms of clause (12) of Section 21
Indian Penal Code itself, which corresponds to clause (i) of clause(c) of
Section 2 of the 1988 Act. The Supreme Court held that a Minister is
appointed and dismissed by the Governor and is therefore subordinate to
him, that he gets salary for the public work done or the public duty
performed by him and that the said salary is paid to him from the
Government funds. Theoretically there is no time limit or bear for launching
prosecution under the Act. Even MPs and MLAs come under the ambit of
public servant and public duty in Jarkhan Mukti Morcha11 case the Apex
Court of India held that the public duty is one in which public or State or
commits has interest at large and MPs represent the people of their
constituency

is

the

highest

law

making

body. There

is

also

their

representation in deciding a control over the execution. To that extent they

perform public duty and fall within the purview of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.