The cases registered under the PC Act, 1988, are treated as the Anti-Corruption Cases. This Act contains 31 Sections, divided into 5 Chapters. Chapter-III of the Act starts with Sec. 7 and ends with Sec. 16. Sec. 16 deals with modalities concerning imposition of fine, once the accused has been convicted and, inter alia, fine has to be imposed by the court. Hence, corruption cases are registered under Secs. 7 to 15 of the PC Act. These can be categorised into four parts, which are as under :-

1. Trap Case

(a) Trap against Public Servant: Public Servant who accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any gratification other legal remuneration in respect of an official function or for getting the work done with the Central or State Govt. or Parliament or State Legislature or a registered Company or a Public Servant is dealt under Sec. 7 of PC Act, 1988. Habitual bribe takers are dealt u/s 13(1)(a). Public Servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant as defined u/s 11 of PC Act, 1988 and habituals are dealt u/s 13(1)(b)

(b) Trap against bribe giver (reverse trap): Any person responsible for abetment of offences as defined u/s 7 or Sec. 11 of PC Act, 1988, commits an offence of abetment which is punishable u/s 12 of PC Act, 1988.

(c) Trap against Tout/Middleman: Taking gratification, in order to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means is an offence as defined u/s 8 of PC Act, 1988. Similarly, taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with the public servant is also an offence u/s 9 of PC Act, 1988.  

2. Abuse of Authority as Public Servant-

These cases are registered against the public servant who (i) obtains for himself or for any other persons any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position as public servant or (ii) by corrupt or illegal means or (iii) when public servant obtains for any person any pecuniary advantage without public interest (13(1)(d).

3. Misappropriation of Money by Public Servant (Sec. 13(1)(c)-

Under this category, if any public servant who is entrusted with any property or any property is placed under his control, dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or converts the same to his own use, he commits an offence under section Sec. 13(1)(c).

4. Acquisition of Disproportionate Assets-

These cases are registered against such public servant who possess assets disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for . In these cases the accused person or any person on his behalf may be investigated for possessing the assets.

Investigation of PC Act case in no way differs from the investigation of any other case, except for the fact that offences under the P.C. Act, 1988 are semi-cognizable, as Police Officer, below a certain rank is not empowered to investigate. Hence, Police Officer below that rank can not arrest without warrant of arrest.

Investigation is defined under Sec. 2(h) of Cr.P.C., 1973 (Act II of 1974). Evidences as per this Act are of two kinds - (a) Documentary and (b) Oral. While pursuing investigation and collecting evidence, it is to be seen whether the facts gathered are relevant to the fact in issue or relevant facts or explain relevant fact. For this, ‘Evidence’ as defined in the Indian Evidence Act is to be read and understood. It reads as under :-

“Evidence” - Evidence means and includes :-

(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;

(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence”. Besides these, other provisions concerning sanction, trial by Spl. Court, powers to inspect books of account of banks, presumptions as envisaged in the Act itself make its investigation a bit special. Further, in respect of attachment of property under the PC Act, pari passu, the proceedings, before cognizance of a case has been taken, are maintainable in the Court of District Judge, but after the cognizance is taken, it is maintainable in the court of Special Judge. Proceedings of this Act too, are special in that, though Court of Spl. Judge is Court of Sessions and yet no committal is required for trial to ensure speedy trial as mandated u/s 4(4), the trial to proceed on day to day basis and with the change of the Presiding Officer of the Court - pre-cognizane and post-cognizance stage - the proceeding to further continue. It may always be remembered that (i) cases under PC Act can be registered against private persons also and (ii) sanction for prosecution is required only in respect of Sec. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the PC Act, 1988 (Sec. 19).

The offences as defined u/s 7 to 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Read More


Untitled Document