ANTI CORRUPTION CASES
BY
Shri. K.Sudhakar,
Deputy Legal Advisor
CBI, Mumbai
(Zone-I & Zone-II)
Need For Training Module


The need for organizing ‘Training Module’ to
meet the Press on the subject is felt to enrich
the Media with the anti-corruption cases and its
governing laws.
Organizing Workshops and Training Module
with the media is not new and earlier the Press
Council of India in association with Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and National Legal
Services Authority and Editors Guild of India
organized workshops on the reporting of court
proceedings by Media and Administration of
Justice.



Media has been recognized as “FOURTH
ESTATE” , occupies very important and
significant place in a Democracy along
with Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Freedom of Speech and Expression are
recognized under Article-19 (1) (a) of
the Indian Constitution subject to
certain restrictions.
Media is expected and obliged to work
within the frame-work of the Constitution
and other relevant Acts.


The basic role of Media is to inform,
educate and guide the society and it is a
‘Potent Organ’ of communication which
can keep the society well informed about
the violation of laws.
We have witnessed that the Media has
exposed powerful personalities stand
before the law of the land. It is a matter
of concern that at times, the Media has
become more proactive by liberally
commenting on the role of police in the
investigation.


Such actions of Media often influence the
general public to believe the same and
putting undue pressure on the course of
fair investigation by the police. The end
result is loss of public faith in police and
investigating agency. Hence, the Media
needs a vigilant reporting. The reporters
of Media should have some basic
knowledge about the cases which fall
under the category of “Anti Corruption”.
Hence, to enrich with the subject and to
refresh with the Anti Corruption Law, this
Training Module, Meet-The-Press is
coined.
EVOLUTION OF LAW


INDIAN PENAL CODE was brought into force
from 01.01.1862, though it received assent of
Governor General of India on 6th October
1860.
Indian Penal Code Chapter-IX deals with all
offences by or relating to public servant. This
Chapter does not deal with misconduct and
abuse of power by the public servant.



Section 161 to 165 of IPC deals with various
offences of corruption and this is the first step to
fight against corruption committed by the public
servants.
Section 161 of IPC deals with a public servant
who accepts or obtains or agrees to accept from
any person for himself or for any other person
any gratification other than the legal
remuneration.
Section 162 of IPC deals with a person who
accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain for himself or for any other
person any gratification by corrupt or illegal
means to influence a public servant.



Section 163 of IPC deals with a person who
accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain for himself or for any other
person any gratification for inducing and by
exercise of personal influence with any public
servant.
Section 164 of IPC deals with abetment of
offence of sec.162 and 163 IPC.
Section 165 of IPC deals with a public servant
who accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing without any
consideration or less consideration.

There was no offence till 1952 for
abetment of any offence u/sec.161 or 165.
Hence, in 1952, by way of Criminal Law
Amendment, 165-A was inserted to make
abettor of sec.161 or 165 of IPC as
offenders.
What amounts to a bribe?
I.
II.
III.
IV.


The receiver must be a public servant.
He must solicit or receive illegal gratification.
He must have received the same as a motive
or reward.
It should be other than legal remuneration.
Motive is for doing a future act.
Reward is for a past act.





Mere demand of bribe by a public servant is an
offence u/sec. 161 IPC (Mubarak Ali v/s State
AIR 1958 MP page-157).
Gratification is not restricted to pecuniary
gratification or estimable in money (C.I. Emden
v/s State of UP AIR 1960 SC 548).
During 2nd World War, there was large scale of
corruption in War Dept. which necessitated for
creation of a Special Police Establishment to
curb corruption.
Later the Special Police Establishment became the
Central Bureau of Investigation.
There was no special act for Prevention of
Corruption till 11th March 1947.


A Special Act i.e. Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 came into existence from 11th
March 1947 to make more effective
provision for the prevention of bribery and
corruption.
By enacting the Special Act, in addition to
IPC provisions (Sec.161 to 165) Criminal
Misconduct was made as an offence as
per Sec.5 of PC Act, 1947.
Criminal Misconduct
1.
2.
3.
If a public servant habitually accepts any
bribe. This offence is aggravated form of 161
IPC.
If a public servant habitually accepts any
valuable thing without consideration or for less
consideration with whom he transacted
business or about to be transacted. It is
aggravated form of sec. 165 IPC.
Fraudulently misappropriates or converts
for his own use any property entrusted to him
or under his control or allows any other
person.
4.
5.

By corrupt and illegal means or
otherwise by abusing his official position
as public servant obtains any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage.
Possession of Disproportionate Assets.
To consolidate the law relating to the
Prevention of Corruption, the old PC Act
is repealed, and the provisions of
Section 161 to 165-A IPC were also
repealed by introducing PC Act, 1988
which
came
into
effect
from
09.09.1988.
Under this Act, the provisions of IPC and the
provisions of Sec. 5 of PC Act, 1947 were put
together as under:
S l.
No.
IP C
P unish
m e nt
PC
Act,
1947
P uni s
hm e nt
P C Act,
198 8
P unishm e nt
1
S e c. 161
3 ye a rs
S e c.7
S ha ll not be le ss tha n six m onth s. m a y ex te nd to five ye a rs
2
S e c. 162
3 ye a rs
S e c.8
S ha ll not be le ss tha n six m onth s. M a y ex te nd to five yea rs.
3
S e c. 163
S e c.9
S ha ll not be le ss tha n six m onth s. M a y ex te nt to five yea rs.
4
S e c. 164
3 ye a rs
S e c.10
S ha ll not be le ss tha n six m onth s. M a y ex te nd to five yea rs.
5
S e c. 165
3 ye a rs
S e c.11
S ha ll not be le ss tha n six m onth s. M a y ex te nd to five yea rs.
6
S e c. 165 A
3 ye a rs
S e c. 12
S ha ll not be le ss tha n six m onth s. M a y ex te nd to five yea rs.
Anti-Corruption can be basically divided
into three categories.

1.
2.
3.
bribery and its abettors.
Abuse of official position
Possession of disproportionate assets.
Bribery and its Abettors



Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly
be found either as drinking or not drinking
water.(Kautilya) Similarly, public servants cannot
be found out while taking money.
Sec. 7 of PC Act 1988 deals with public servant
taking
gratification
other
than
legal
remuneration.
The public servant becomes functus officio
when money offered to him as a bribe.



Payment of a sum to a public servant whether
paid before or after the act would constitute
bribe (Mohinder Lal Bagai v/s Delhi
Administration 1970 Cr LJ 793)
The practice of laying traps employing spies and
trap witnesses for detection of offences has
been recognized in this country (In re
Ambujam Ammal, AIR 1954 Madras 326).
Sting operation by a private television channel
for detection of crime was also accepted (Sri
Bharadwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. v/s State 2008
(2) Crimes 244 Delhi). In this case, a telecast
programme was shown from MPs receiving
money for raising question in Parliament. The
Delhi High Court observed that FIR could be
quashed only if all facts stated when considered
true did not disclose cognizable offence.




Section 8 and 9 of PC Act are
complimentary to sec.7 of the PC Act and
are intended to reach to the aiders and
abettors of the offence.
Section 8 and 9 of the PC Act are
applicable to public servants as well as to
private persons.
The abettors of the offences of sec.7
and 11 are dealt under sec.12 of the PC
Act for the abetment.
The abettors of the offences u/sec. 8 and
9 are dealt u/sec.10 of the PC Act.




The habitual abettors for the offences
u/sec. 8, 9 and 12 of PC Act are dealt
under sec. 14 of the PC Act.
The aggravated form of bribe i.e. habitual
acceptance of bribe is a criminal
misconduct.
The habitual acceptance of valuable thing
without consideration or inadequate
consideration is also criminal misconduct.
The above forms are falling under the
category of bribery.
Abuse of official position




Abuse means misuse i.e. using his position
for something for which it is not intended.
The abuse of official position is wider than
the offence of bribery.
The abuse may be by corrupt or illegal
means .
To obtain pecuniary advantage or any
valuable thing for himself or for any other
person .




To obtain pecuniary advantage or any valuable
thing for himself or for any other person without
any public interest .
All bribery cases squarely fall under “obtaining any
pecuniary advantage “ in addition to section 7 of
the PC Act, 1988 .
Causing wrongful loss to the Govt to obtain
pecuniary advantage for a third party falls under
abuse of Power (M Narayanan Nambiar Vs
State of Kerala AIR 1963 SC 1116 ).
Issue of contracts to the bidders at higher rates
would also fall under abuse of powers
(Narbahadur Bhandari Vs State 2003 Cr.LJ
2799 Sikkim, Ghulam Din Butch Vs State of
J& K AIR 1996 SC 1568 ) .
Possession of disproportionate assets


Large numbers of public servants indulge in
corrupt activities on regular basis and some
times it would be difficult to catch them while
accepting the bribe by laying a trap and the illgotten money so colleted by them are converted
into assets. Hence, to detect such officer,
disproportionate asset was made as an offence
in PC Act.
In K. Veera Swami v/s Union of India
(1991) 3 SCC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that if one possesses assets beyond
his legitimate means, it goes without saying that
the excess is out of ill-gotten gain. The assets
are not drawn like Nitrogen from the air.



In P. Nallamal v/s State 1999 Cr LJ 3967,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the abettor
can also be prosecuted for aiding to acquire
disproportionate assets by the public servant.
Every public servant is legally bound to inform the
receipt of income otherwise the same cannot be
treated as income.
The above are only certain illustrations of bribery
and corruption and the media may keep the same
in mind while reporting any corruption related
matter .
If you shut your doors to all errors , truth will be
shut out (Rabindra Nath Tagore).
Sanction




No court shall take cognizance of an offence
under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of PC
Act.
Sanction not required for the offences under
sec 8, 9, 12 and 14 of PC Act.
In case of Group-A officers, sanction is
accorded by the Central Govt.
In case of others, viz., Public Sector
undertakings and Non Group-A officers,
sanction is accorded by the competent
authority.



High court cannot give direction to the
sanctioning authority to grant sanction.
(Mansukh Lal Vithal Das Chauhan Vs. State
of Gujarat 1997 Crl.L.J 4059 SC)
Sanction for retired employees not
necessary.
Time limit of 3 months for issuing sanction
order fixed by Hon’ble Supreme court
(Vineet Naraian Vs. Union of India AIR 1998
SC 889)




Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is a
commission established under CVC Act
2003.
According to sec 8(g) of CVC Act, it tenders
advice to the Central Govt., corporations
established under any central act.
CVC advices whether there is a prima facie
case against a Group-A officer/ Middle
Management officer of a Corporation to
accord sanction or not.
In case of difference of opinion between the
organisation and CBI, CVC resolves the
difference of opinion.




In case of difference of opinion between
the organisation and CVC, a committee
will resolve the difference of opinion.
If commission’s advice to grant of sanction
is not accepted then the matter is referred
to DOPT for final decision.
The object of sanction is to save public
servants for frivolous prosecution.
Sanction order is an administrative act.



Statement of bribe giver is not subject to
prosecution.
The bribe giver cooperates with the
investigation and gets immunity under sec
24 of PC Act.
Shri Bhupender Singh, a journalist
employed in Akash Channel acted as
conduit and offered a bribe of Rs.9 Lakhs to
Shri Dilip Singh Judeo, which he received in
the presence of Addl. Private Secretary.
Shri. Singh Video recorded the incident
arranged by Arvind Vijay Mohan.



Shri Singh filled Criminal Revision Petition
in Delhi High Court challenging charges
under sec 12 of PC Act.
Shri Singh contended that he is a
journalist
and
wanted
to
expose
corruption and no intention to aide the
crime.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that his role
can be ascertained during trial only
(Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. CBI ,III 2008
CCR 247 Delhi)



The role of Media is really laudable and within the
umbrella of Fundamental Rights , they can report
the true facts subject to the restrictions.
Transparency is imperative because it adds to the
credibility and inspires the confidence of the
public. Hence basic knowledge of Anti-Corruption
is required so that no erroneous reporting could
be made .
Corrupt influence is itself the perennial spring of
all prodigality and of all disorder, it loads us more
than millions of debts , takes away vigor from our
arms , wisdom from our councils , every shadow
of authority and credit from the most venerable
parts of our constitution (Bruke).
correct reporting of corrupt officials would help the
progress of the country .