THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: A

CRITICAL STUDY

A SUMMARY OF THESIS
SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA
FOR THE DEGREE
OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
LAW

BY
RAHUL CHHOKER
(Reg. No. 08-DE-187)

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DR. C.R. JILOVA
ASST. PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY
KURUKSHETRA – 136 119, INDIA
SEPTEMBER - 2016
0
 SUMMARY

The evil of corruption has been affecting human society from the earliest time. More or
less; this evil exists throughout the world. This study seeks to find out the root causes and
consequences of corruption. The study revolves around the analysis of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. In addition, the comparative analysis of the laws of various countries is also studied.
An honest effort is made to find out the loopholes or shortcomings within the Act. Suitable
suggestions have also been made for giving sound teeth to the legislation for making it efficient
enough to deal with the evil of corruption.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM UNDER THE STUDY
The evil of corruption is linked with the life of each individual of the State because of its
socio-economic effects. The origin of the evil of corruption has become a topic of consideration
and worry in society at large and in the mass media, in academic domains, amongst the persons
of various trade and occupations. It has become a regular topic of debate between members of
legislature, representatives of people, politicians of different political parties, public servants,
businessmen, labour communities and students. Corruption emanates as a result of deficiencies
in the present public administration structures as well as traditional, social, political and other
related elements. In addition, the inefficiency of anti-corruption legislation and poor
implementation of laws by the enforcement agencies has increased the vigor of this evil. The
main legislation dealing with the evil of corruption is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The efficacy of this legislation may provide better results in controlling the evil of corruption.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of the study may be summarized as:
i. To analyze the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
ii. To discuss about the efficacy and inadequacies of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988;
iii. To carry out comparative study with regard to legislations relating with the
prevention of corruption in other countries;
iv. To examine limitations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to provide
suggestions for making it more effective.

1
 v. To examine the competence and proficiency of the statutes and agencies working
against the corruption;
vi. To inculcate suggestions for the improvement in the existing statutes and to ensure
their proper implementation;

HYPOTHESIS
Primary examination of data from various sources suggests the formulation of a clear
hypothesis concerning the role of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in combating corruption in
India. The hypothesis is that the sustenance and success of efforts to combat systemic corruption
in India is directly related to the efficacy and effective implementation of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

QUESTIONS OF THE RESEARCH

The idea to start a research emanates from certain questions relating to the topic of
research. These questions are of prime importance and are needed to be discussed. These
questions lie into the roots of the problem which is going to be the subject of research. In this
way; every single research strives for answering certain questions which may prove to be very
beneficial for the others. Hence, every researcher should concentrate to explore the questions
related with his research. After framing these questions he has to make efforts to find the
promising answers to those questions. All this make his research beneficial and relevant to the
problems. According to the objectives of the research, the present research seeks to find out the
answers of the following questions:
i. How the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other relevant statutes can help in
preventing/reducing corruption in India?
ii. What are the shortcomings or limitations of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
iii. What is the principal belief about the main reasons behind corruption in the country?
iv. What is the effect of corruption on development?
v. When the evil of corruption came into existence in the country?
vi. How the subject of tolerance pertaining to corruption is acceptable in India?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

There cannot be a single research perfect in itself. The human agencies are involved into
a given research which is bound to leave some scope for limitations. Similar is the fate of this

2
research. The present study focuses mainly upon India. Though an attempt has been made to
discuss the evil of corruption at international level, yet the study is confined only to one chapter
(Chapter-III). One other limitation of the research is that the research is made on non-empirical
methods because of lack of time and resources. That is why; we have utilized the empirical data
prepared by other notable researchers. We are committed to further explore the topic in a more
elaborative manner in future. The research studies the political and socio-economic causes and
consequences of corruption and tries to bring out the consequences in legal remedial methods in
the form of statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for curbing corruption.
For any kind of research, it is essential to obtain significant and trustworthy data relating
to the topic of the research. The research, no doubt, suffers from certain limitations due to the
nature and attitude of people regarding corruption in India. On one hand people criticize the
presence of evil of corruption, on the other hand they try to get benefit for themselves by giving
bribes to the officials or they prefer to misuse their official position for their personal benefits.
There are various other limitations which may be summarized as following:
i. The administrative and political system is not efficient enough to deal with the evil of
corruption and it is in its infantile stage to provide satisfactory data for the research.
ii. Corruption, still, has a wide acceptance in India and it is not a stress-free issue to be
dealt with and there are many difficulties which can hamper any research work.
iii. Inadequate literature, both empirical and non-empirical, on corruption in India is also
a problem.
iv. There are various lacunas into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 like non-
application of provisions upon corporate and private sector bribery, lesser punishment
etc.

SCHEME OF CHAPTERS
Chapter-I deals with the meaning and definitions of various terms related with the
corruption. It also explains the nature, scope, purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the study.
Chapter-II deals with the historical background of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. This chapter discusses various judicial pronouncements and previous legislations which
have helped in the evolution of the Prevention of Corruption Act into its present form.

3
 Chapter-III deals with the comparative study of present statute with the International
Statutes on corruption. It also discusses the quantum and effects of corruption in various
countries.
Chapter-IV discusses various provisions and role of the Prevention of Corruption Act in
abating the evil of corruption. This Chapter mainly deals with the merits of the anti-corruption
provisions given in the Act.
Chapter-V this chapter deals with the shortcomings or limitations of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The detailed analysis of the shortcomings can be very helpful in bringing
about desired changes into the Act.
Chapter-VI this chapter finally concludes the research and gives suggestions relating
with the abatement of corruption and amendments to be made for this purpose, if needed.

4
LIST OF CASES PAGE NO.
A

Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645 33

Amrit Lal v. State of Punjab, 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 796 237

Anukul Chandara Pradhan v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 354 286

B v. The Commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption

(FACC 6/2009) 162

Bhanwar Lal Mali v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (3) Crimes 791 (Raj) 213

Biswabhusan Naik v. State, AIR 1952 Ori. 289 244, 298

B. Noha v. State of Kerala & Another, (2006) 12 SCC 277 248

Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli 217,300

& Others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1077-1081 OF 2013 302,320,328

Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1619 288

Common Cause v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 593 307

C.S.D. Swamy v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7 221

Dadaji v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 741 218

5
Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575 234

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 317

D. Velayutham v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police, Salem Town,

Chennai, AIR 2015 SC 2506 232

G.A. Monterio v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1957 SC 13 213

G. Nagarajan v. State rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption

Special Cell, 2010 (14) R.C.R. (Criminal) 207 262

Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa, 1993 Cr. L.J. 3604 213,216

Hemant Kumar Mohanti v. State of Orissa, 1973 (1) SLR 1121 222

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 32

Indra Vijay Alok v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2015 SC 3681 235

K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala, 2007 (1) SCC 59 307

K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 (3) SC 196,

1991 SCR (3) 189, 1991 SCC (3) 655 275,277

Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Others CBI (AHD)

Patna, 2007 (1) SCC 49 307

6
 M

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 32

Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 14 SCC 420 320

Manohar Lal Soni v. State of Punjab, LAWS (P&H)-2006-5-433 257

Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 33 305,306

McMillan v. Guest, (1942) AC 561 300

Mohd. Fasal Ahmed v. State of A. P., AIR 1979 SC 677 263

Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Another v. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062, 1981 SCR (3) 68 261

Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 558 240

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 110 307

M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, 1979 Cr. L. J. 773, AIR 1979 SC 598 216

M/s Hcl Infosystem Ltd. V. Central Bureau of Investigation,

2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1012 (SC) 269

Parasnath Pande and anr. v. State, AIR 1962 Bom 205, (1962) 64 BOMLR 188 259

Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others,

2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1 221

Parmod Chander alias Parbodh Chander v. State of Punjab,

2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 239 231

Periasamy v. Inspector Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli,

7
(1992-L.W. (Crl.) 582) 264

Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) SCC 1 307

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (C.B.I.), 1998 Cr. L.J. 2930 213,216

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Others,

AIR 1979 SC 1628 285

Ramesh Gelli v. Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of 217,300

Police, BS & FC & Anr., [Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 167 of 2015] 302,320,328

Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 32

Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 732 238

Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 464, 1964 SCR (4) 630 222

Sashikant v. CBI, AIR 2007 SC 351 76

Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh, AIR 1999 SC 1160 32

Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, (1987) 1 SCC 227 307

Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 599 307

Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 306

Sushil Kumar Modi and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 1996 (2) BLJR 869 287

State of Bihar and others v. Rajmangal Ram, AIR 2014 SC 1674 261

State of Bihar v. Santo Kumar Mitra, AIR 1952 Pat 148 75

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8 SCC 693 325

8
State through CBI, New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh, AIR 2014 SC 1169 269

Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,

2016 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 654 331

Tarsem Singh & Ors. v. State, Chandigarh Administration,

2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831 (P&H) 221

Union of India and Others v. Sushil Kumar Modi and others, 1997 (4) SCC 770 286

Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199 286,306

Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226 286,306,310

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1206 232

Virender Kumar Ohri v. Union of India & Others, (W. P. (C) No. 341/2004) 309

Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal etc. v. State of Bihar & Others, (2016) 3 SCC 183 318

9
CONTENTS PAGE NO.
Certificate i
Declaration ii
Preface iii-iv
Acknowledgements v-vi
Abbreviations vii-xiv
List of Cases xv-xix

CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION 1-51

1.1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.2. INSPIRATION OF THE THESIS 10
1.3. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPTS – ETHICS AND MORALS IN
RELATION WITH CORRUPTION 11
1.3.1. Bribery as a feature of corruption 14
1.3.2. Relation between gift and bribe 18
1.3.3. Corruption in context of lobbying 22
1.3.4. Corruption in the form of nepotism and favoritism 23
1.3.5. Bribes in the form of marketing commissions 24
1.3.6. Facilitating payments 26
1.3.7. Extortion: A bribery or not? 27
1.3.8. Two aspects of corruption: active and passive 29
1.4. EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE 30
1.4.1. The concept of social justice under the constitution of India 31
1.4.2. Corruption as a source of inequality 33
1.4.3. Effect of corruption upon social justice 34
1.5. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION 37

10
1.6. CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION 45
1.7. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH 48
1.8. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM UNDER THE STUDY 48
1.9. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 48
1.10. HYPOTHESIS 49
1.11. QUESTIONS OF THE RESEARCH 49
1.12. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH 50
1.13. SCHEME OF CHAPTERS 51

CHAPTER-II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 52-84

2.1. INTRODUCTION 52
2.2. CORRUPTION IN ANCIENT TIMES 54
2.3. MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING CORRUPTION IN ANCIENT INDIA 57
2.3.1. Effective system of punishment 58
2.3.2. Public proclamation and compensation to the sufferer 59
2.3.3. Reward to the whistleblowers 59
2.3.4. Reward to the honest officers 60
2.3.5. Removing corruption from the judiciary 60
2.3.6. Attachment of the ill-gotten property and transfer as a penalty 61
2.3.7. Effective vigilance system 61
2.4. AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED DURING
ANCIENT TIME 61
2.5. CORRUPTION DURING MEDIEVAL TIMES 63
2.6. CORRUPTION DURING BRITISH PERIOD 66
2.7. CORRUPTION IN INDEPENDENT INDIA 69
2.8. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF
ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW 72
2.8.1. The Regulating Act, 1773 72
2.8.2. The Pitt‟s India Act, 1784 73
2.8.3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 74
2.8.4. Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 75

11
 2.8.5. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 75
2.8.6. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 76
2.8.7. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 77
2.8.8. Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 78
2.8.9. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 79
2.8.10. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 80
2.8.11. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 80
2.8.12. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 81
2.8.13. The Right to Information Act, 2005 82
2.8.14. Other legislations 83

CHAPTER-III INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN

THE FIELD OF ANTI-CORRUPTION 85-199
3.1. INTRODUCTION 85
3.2. CORRUPTION IN PEOPLE‟S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 87
3.2.1. Anti-corruption measures adopted by People‟s Republic of China 93
3.2.2. Legislation and other measures relating to corruption in People‟s
Republic of China 94
3.2.3. Types of bribery 95
3.2.3.1 Official bribery 96
3.2.3.2 Commercial bribery 97
3.2.4. Bribery in public sector 99
3.2.4.1 Acceptance of bribe 99
3.2.4.2 Giving of bribe 99
3.2.5 Bribery in private sector 101
3.2.6. Investigation agencies for corruption 101
3.2.6.1. Regional People‟s Procuratorates (RPP) 102
3.2.6.2. Supervisory Bureaus 102
3.2.6.3. Public Security Bureaus (PSB) 102
3.2.6.4. Discipline Inspection Committees 103
3.2.6.5. Other agencies 103

12
 3.2.7. Power of RPP and PSB regarding investigation 104
3.2.8. Extra-territorial application of criminal law 105
3.3. CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA 107
3.3.1. Investigation agencies dealing with cases of corruption in Malaysia 109
3.3.1.1 Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) 109
3.3.1.2 Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) Of Bank Negara Malaysia
(The Central Bank of Malaysia) 110
3.3.1.3 Attorney General‟s Chambers (AGC) 110
3.3.2. Meaning of gratification 111
3.3.3. Statutes governing the evil of Corruption in Malaysia 112
3.3.3.1. Establishment of Malaysia Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC) 114
3.3.3.2. Establishment of Anti-Corruption Advisory Board 115
3.3.3.3. Establishment of the special committee on corruption 116
3.3.3.4. Establishment of the Complaints Committee 116
3.3.3.5. Offences of corruption/bribery under the MACC Act
in Malaysia 117
3.3.3.6. Duty to disclose communication 118
3.3.3.7. Obstruction of search and investigation is an offence 118
3.3.3.8. Protection to informers 119
3.3.3.9. Penalty under the Act 119
3.3.4. Corruption in public sector 120
3.3.5. Corruption in private sector 120
3.3.6. Power of investigation, arrest and detention 121
3.3.6.1. Power to summon and produce 122
3.3.6.2. Power of search and seizure 122
3.3.6.3. Power to arrest and detain 123
3.3.6.4. Power to seize movable and immovable property 123
3.3.6.5. Power to intercept and capture communication 124
3.3.7. The scope of the MACC Act 124
3.3.8. Malaysian law in context of international scenario 125
3.3.9. Analysis of the provisions 125

13
3.4 CORRUPTION IN SINGAPORE 126
3.4.1. Anti-corruption legislation in Singapore 127
3.4.1.1. The Prevention of Corruption Act 128
3.4.1.2. The Penal Code 128
3.4.1.3. The Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes
(Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA) 131
3.4.2. Investigation/Enforcement Agencies Dealing with the Corruption 131
3.4.2.1. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) 132
3.4.2.2. Commercial Affairs Department of Singapore Police Force (CAD) 133
3.4.2.3. The Economic Crimes and Governance Division of Attorney
General‟s Chambers (EGD) 134
3.4.3. Power of arrest and investigation 134
3.4.4. Power of search and seizure 136
3.4.5. Corruption in public sector 137
3.4.6. Corruption in private sector 140
3.4.7. Corruption of foreign public officials 142
3.4.8. Extra-territorial application of the prevention of Corruption
Act and the Penal Code 143
3.4.9. Compliance of International law and treaties 144
3.4.10. Final Evaluation 144
3.5. CORRUPTION IN HONG KONG 145
3.5.1. Corruption in public sector 146
3.5.2. Corruption in private sector 147
3.5.3. Investigation agencies dealing with the cases of corruption in Hong Kong 147
3.5.3.1. The Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) 148
3.5.3.2. Other bureaus or agencies 148
3.5.4. Use of the word „advantage‟ 149
3.5.5. Statutes governing the evil of corruption in Hong Kong 149
3.5.5.1. The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) 149
3.5.5.2. The Independent Commission against Corruption
Ordinance (ICACO) 150

14
 3.5.5.3. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing
(Financial Institutions) Ordinance (AMLCTFO) 150
3.5.5.4. The Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance
(DTROP) 151
3.5.5.5. The Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) 151
3.5.5.6. The Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (ECICO) 151
3.5.5.7. Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO) 152
3.5.5.8. The Banking Ordinance (BO) 152
3.5.6. Offences of corruption/bribery under the Prevention of Bribery
Ordinance (POBO) 152
3.5.7. Protection to Informers or Whistleblowing Legislation 161
3.5.8. Penalty under the Act 161
3.5.9. Extra territorial application of the law 162
3.5.10. The scope of Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) in relation with
International law 162
3.6. CORRUPTION IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) 143
3.6.1. Legislation dealing with bribery or corruption 165
3.6.1.1. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 166
3.6.1.2. The American Anti-Corruption Act of 2011 167
3.6.1.3. Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 167
3.6.1.4. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and Whistle-Blower
Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 168
3.6.2. Enforcement agencies 169
3.6.2.1. Department of Justice (DOJ) 169
3.6.2.2. Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) 169
3.6.2.3. Office of Special Counsel 170
3.6.3. Penalties under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 170
3.6.4. Active bribery and passive bribery 171
3.6.5. Intention – punishable or not 171
3.6.6. Facilitation payments 171
3.6.7. Promotional expanses 172
3.6.8. Corruption in public and private sector 172

15
 3.6.9. Scope of the Act 172
3.6.10. Final evaluation 173
3.7. CORRUPTION IN UNITED KINGDOM (UK) 173
3.7.1. Offences under the Act 174
3.7.1.1. General bribery offences 174
3.7.1.2. Bribery of foreign public officials 178
3.7.1.3. Failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery 181
3.7.2. Introduction of new offences under the Act 183
3.7.3. Meaning of the terms: „foreign public official‟, „public international
Organisation‟ and „business‟ 184
3.7.4. Meaning of „associated person‟ 185
3.7.5. Anti-bribery procedure prescribed for commercial organisations 186
3.7.6. Hospitality – a bribe or not 187
3.7.7. Facilitation payments – a bribery or not 188
3.7.8. Investigation agencies dealing with corruption 189
3.7.8.1. The National Crime Agency 189
3.7.8.2. Establishment of International Corruption Unit (ICU) 190
3.7.8.3. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) 191
3.7.8.4. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) 191
3.7.8.5. The City of London Police (COLP) 192
3.7.8.6. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) 192
3.7.8.7. The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) 193
3.7.9. Compliance of various treaties 193
3.7.10. Final evaluation 194
3.8. STEPS TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL BODIES INTO THE FIELD
OF ANTI-CORRUPTION 195
3.8.1. United Nations‟ effort against the evil of corruption 195
3.8.1.1. The United Nations convention against Corruption (UNCAC) 196
3.8.1.2. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised
Crime (UNCTOC) 198
3.8.1.3. OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials in International Business Transactions 198
16
CHAPTER-IV AN ANALYSIS OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 200-282
4.1. INTRODUCTION 200
4.2. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SERVANT 207
4.2.1. Origin and development of the term „public servant‟ 209
4.2.2. Minister, Chief Minister and Prime Minister – whether Public servant
or not? 216
4.3. DEFINITION OF THE TERM „PUBLIC DUTY‟ 217
4.4. PRIVATE PERSONS ARE ALSO COVERED TO SOME EXTENT 218
4.5. INTERPRETATION OF „KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME‟ IN
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 220
4.6. INVESTIGATION OR ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 224
4.7. POLICE OFFICERS AUTHORISED TO INVESTIGATE UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 230
4.8.1. Presumption of corruption in certain cases 231
4.8.2. Presumption juris et de jure 233
4.8.3. Presumption “shall presume” 233
4.8.4. Presumption may presume 233
4.8.5. Difference between presumptions under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding section 20 of the new act) and
Section 114 of Evidence Act 234
4.8.6. Nature of presumption 235
4.8.7. Acceptance of gratification is to be proved first 236
4.9. OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT 238
4.9.1. Public servants taking illegal gratification 238
4.9.2. Receiving valuable thing without consideration or for an inadequate
consideration 240
4.9.3. Offence of Criminal Misconduct 241

17
 4.9.4. Offence committed by habitual offenders 243
4.9.5. Offences committed by the persons other than public servants 244
4.9.6. Abetment of certain offences is also an offence 246
4.10.1. Analysis of the term “Criminal Misconduct” (Section 13 of The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) 247
4.10.2. Criminal misconduct on the basis of section 5 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 249
4.10.3. Scope of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 250
4.10.4. Analysis of the overlapping of Section 5 (1) (a) and Section 161
of Indian Penal Code 252
4.10.5. Joint trial under Section (5 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 or 1988 respectively) and Section 409 of Indian Penal Code 252
4.11. INVESTIGATION OF THE OFFENCES 253
4.12.1. Prerequisite of sanction before taking cognizance 255
4.12.2. The role of a competent authority in giving sanction 258
4.12.3. Quashing of Section-6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 265
4.13. ACCUSED PERSON TO BE A COMPETENT WITNESS 266
4.14.1. Appointment of Special judges 268
4.14.2. Qualification required to be appointed as Special Judge 269
4.14.3. Cases triable by Special Judge 269
4.14.4. Procedure to be followed and powers of Special Judge 270
4.15. APPLICABILITY OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT UPON JUDICIAL
OFFICERS 274
4.16. WITNESS PROTECTION MECHANISM 276
4.17. NEXUS OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT WITH INCOME
TAX ACT, 1961 277
4.18. PENALTIES OR PUNISHMENT UNDER THE ACT 279
4.19. JURISDICTION OR PROCEDURE OF COURTS UNDER MILITARY,
NAVAL AND AIR FORCE OROTHER LAW NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 281
4.20. PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPEAL AND REVISION 281

18
CHAPTER-V LIMITATIONS OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT 283-315
5.1. INTRODUCTION 283
5.2. PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 283
5.3. CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE 284
5.3.1. Provisions of constitution can curb corruption indirectly 285
5.3.2. Corruption and violation of fundamental rights 287
5.3.3. Constitutional basis of the powers of the Apex Court 288
5.4. LIMITATIONS OR SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ACT 290
5.4.1. Loophole in provisions relating to punishment 293
5.4.1.1. Insufficient punishment not proving to be a deterrent to
commit crime 294
5.4.1.2. Inconsistency regarding punishment between Section 13 and 14 295
5.4.1.3. Abetment of offence committed under Section 11 is punished
with more sentence than the offence itself 298
5.4.1.4. No amendment in Section 10 and 11 299
5.4.2. Act applicable only upon public servants 299
5.4.3. Does not punish instances of corporate or private bribery 301
5.4.4. Does not cover corruption of foreign public officials 303
5.4.5. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not have extra-territorial
application 304
5.4.6. Need of sanction – unnecessary burden upon prosecution 305
5.4.7. Section 21 already exists under the Code of Criminal Procedure 308
5.4.8. Difficulty in implementing Section 3 and 4 of the Act 308
5.4.9. Lack of coordination between different investigation agencies 309
5.4.10. Control of government over investigation agencies 310
5.4.11. No provision for expert investigation officers 311
5.4.12. No proper mechanism for trap cases 311
5.4.13. No clear provisions about attachment of property 312
5.4.14. No protection of whistleblowers within the Act 313
5.4.15. Policy matters are outside the scope of the Act 313
19
 5.4.16. Appointment of Lokpal is pending 314

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 316-339

6.1. CONCLUSION 316
6.2. EMERGING TRENDS: APPLICABLE UPON PRIVATE PERSONS
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES 319
6.3. SUGGESTIONS 321
6.3.1. Provisions relating to punishment may be amended 322
6.3.2. Consistency regarding punishment may be established between
Sections 13 and 14 322
6.3.3. Punishment may be extended under Sections 10 and 11 325
6.3.4. Lacuna left under Sections 10 and 11 may be removed 325
6.3.5. Section 10 and 11 may also be amended accordingly 326
6.3.6. The Act may also be made applicable upon private persons 327
6.3.7. Corporate bribery may also be included 328
6.3.8. Corrupt foreign public officials may also be covered 329
6.3.9. The Prevention of Corruption Act may be given extra-territorial
application 330
6.3.10. Need of sanction may be done away with 330
6.3.11. Implementation of Sections 3 and 4 may be guaranteed 332
6.3.12. Coordination may be established between different
investigation agencies 332
6.3.13. Investigation agencies may be free from the control of government 333
6.3.14. Need of appointing specialist investigation officers 334
6.3.15. Provisions regarding traps may also be incorporated into the Act 334
6.3.16. Provisions regarding attachment of property of accused and other
persons may be introduced into the Act 335
6.3.17. Protection to whistleblowers 336
6.3.18. Policy matters may also be brought under the scope of the Act 336
6.3.19. Implementation of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 may be ensured 337
6.3.20. Rewards to informers or officers may be given 337
6.3.21. Introduction of e-governance and Citizen‟s Charter 338
20
 6.3.22. Other measures 338
6.4. FUTURE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 339

BIBLIOGRAPHY 340-350

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. BOOKS:
i. Andrew Wedeman, Double Paradox: Rapid Growth and Rising Corruption in China,
Cornell University Press, Sage House, New York, 2012.
ii. Anthony Sampson, The Arms Bazaar: From Lebanon to Lockheed, Viking Press,
New York, 1977.
iii. Arnold A. Rogow and Lasswell Harold, Power, Corruption and Rectitude,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1963.
iv. Arnold J. Heidenheimer & Michael Johnston (eds.), Political Corruption, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick and London, 3rd ed., 2002.
v. Arvind K. Jain (ed.), The Political Economy of Corruption, Routledge: Taylor &
Francis Group, London and New York, 2001.
vi. Ashok Dhamija, Prevention of Corruption Act, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur, Gurgaon, 2nd ed., 2009.
vii. Atul Lalasaheb More, An Appraisal of the Judicial System in India: A Critical Study
on Judicial Independence Vis-à-vis Judicial Accountability, Laxmi Book Publication,
Solapur, 2015.
viii. A. Heidenheimer, Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis, Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1970.
ix. B.N. Mani Tripathi, Jurisprudence (Legal Theory), Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad, 17th ed., 2006.
x. Donatella Della Porta and Alberto Vannucci, Corrupt Exchanges: Actors, Resources,
and Mechanisms of Political Corruption, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1999.
xi. E.A. Livingstone (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2 rev. ed. 2006.

21
 xii. Girish Mishra, White Collar Crimes, Gyan Publishing House, Delhi, 1998.
xiii. H.L.A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1963.
xiv. Jihn Mukum Mbaku, Corruption in Africa: Causes, Consequences, and Cleanups,
Lexington Books, Plymouth, UK, 2007.
xv. John T. Noonan, Bribes, Macmillan Publishing Company, California, 1984.
xvi. Kailash Rai, Indian Legal & Constitutional History, Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad, 5th ed., 2011.
xvii. Kamal Kishore Mishra, Police Administration in Ancient India, Mittal Publications,
New Delhi, 1987.
xviii. K.D. Irani, and Silver Morris (eds.), Social Justice in the Ancient World Greenwood
Publishing Group, Westport, CT, 1995.
xix. K.N. Dhar Faces of Glory: Kashmiri Pandit Personalities, Kashmir News Network,
1st ed., August-2002.
xx. K. Veeraswami, Whither – Laws and Justice, Eastern Law House Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata,
2001.
xxi. Manzar Saeed, Malik’s Commentary on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Delhi
Law House, Delhi, 1st ed., 2013.
xxii. Maurizio Lisciandra, A Review of the Causes and Effects of Corruption in the
Economic Analysis in S. Caneppele and F. Calderoni (eds.), Organized Crime,
Corruption, and Crime Prevention, Springer, New York, 2014.
xxiii. M. Johnston, Public Officials, Private Interests and Sustainable Democracy: When
Politics and Corruption Meet” in K.A. Elliott (ed.), Corruption and the Global
Economy, Institute of International Economics, Washington DC, 1997.
xxiv. M.P. Singh, Outlines of Indian Legal & Constitutional History, Universal Law
Publishing Co. Ltd., Delhi, 8th ed. 2006.
xxv. M. Robinson (ed.), Corruption and Development, Frank Cass Publishers, London,
1998.
xxvi. Neil H. Jacoby, Peter Nehemkis, et al., Bribery and Extortion in World Business: A
Study of Corporate Political Payments Abroad, Macmillan, New York, 1977.
xxvii. N.V. Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence & Legal Theory, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad, 4th ed., 2008.

22
 xxviii. P.S. Narayana, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Asia Law House, Hyderabad,
2nd ed., 2012.
xxix. Radhey Shyam Sharma, History of Medieval India: from 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D.
Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2002.
xxx. Ritu Kohli, Kautiliya’s Political Theory, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi,
1995.
xxxi. Robert Klitgaard, Controlling Corruption, University of California Press, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, 1988.
xxxii. Ronald Wraith and Edgar Simpkins, Corruption in Developing Countries, George
Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1963.
xxxiii. R. Pearce and R. Stearn, Access to History, Government and Reform: Britain 1815-
1918, Hodder & Stoughton, 2nd ed., 2000.
xxxiv. R. Shama Sastry (trans.), Kuatilya’sArthsastra, Mysore Printing and Publishing
House, Mysore, 8th ed. 1967.
xxxv. Samual P Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, Yale University Press,
New Haven, 1968.
xxxvi. Sandeep Mukerjee, Commentaries on the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. 49 of
1988), Hind Publishing House, Allahabad, 1990.
xxxvii. Simeon Obidiaro, Transnational Corruption and Corporations: Regulating Bribery
through Corporate Liability, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London & New
York, 2016.
xxxviii. Sudarshan Goyal & Ravi Sodhi, Crime, Law and Advice, Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 2013.
xxxix. Susan Rose-Ackerman, Corruption: A study in political economy, Academic Press,
New York, 1978.
xl. Syed Hussein Alatas, Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Function, Avebury,
England, 1st ed., 1990.s
xli. Thomas Donaldson & W. Thomas Dunfee, Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts
Approach to Business Ethics, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts,
1999.

23
 xlii. T. P. Clifford, The Political Machine: An American Institution, Vantage Press, New
York, 1975.
xliii. Upendra Thakur, Corruption in Ancient India, Abinav Publications, New Delhi,
1979.
xliv. V.K. Gupta, Kautiliya Arthsastra, Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 2004.
xlv. W.H. Moreland and P. Geyl, Jahangir’s India: The Remonstrantie of Francisco
Pelsaert, W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., Cambridge, 1925.

2. STATUTES AND CONVENTIONS:

i. The Regulating Act, 1773
ii. The Pitt‟s India Act, 1784
iii. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
iv. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
v. The Indian Election Offenses and Enquiries Act, 1920
vi. The Official Secrets Act, 1923
vii. Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
viii. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
ix. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
x. The Constitution of India, 1950
xi. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
xii. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952
xiii. The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956
xiv. Income Tax Act, 1961
xv. Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964
xvi. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
xvii. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976
xviii. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
xix. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
xx. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
xxi. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
xxii. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003

24
 xxiii. The Right to Information Act, 2005
xxiv. Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006
xxv. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
xxvi. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2009
xxvii. The Companies Act, 1965 (Malaysia)
xxviii. The Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (Malaysia)
xxix. Singapore Penal Code
xxx. The Prevention of Corruption Act Ordinance 39 Of 1960 (Singapore)
xxxi. The Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation Of
Benefits) Act (Singapore)
xxxii. The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Hong Kong)
xxxiii. The Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance
xxxiv. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions)
Ordinance (AMLCTFO) (Hong Kong)
xxxv. The Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (DTROP) (Hong Kong)
xxxvi. The Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) (Hong Kong)
xxxvii. The Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (ECICO) (Hong Kong)
xxxviii. Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO) (Hong Kong)
xxxix. The Banking Ordinance (BO) (Hong Kong)
xl. Offences of Corruption/Bribery under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO)
(Hong Kong)
xli. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977
xlii. The American Anti-Corruption Act of 2011 (US)
xliii. Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (US)
xliv. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 (US)
xlv. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (US)
xlvi. The UK Bribery Act, 2010
xlvii. United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
xlviii. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (UNCTOC)

25
xlix. OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International
Business Transactions

3. JOURNALS
i. Alberto Ades and Rafael di Tella, “The Causes and Consequences of Corruption:
A Review of Recent Empirical Contributions” 27 (2) IDS Bulletin 6-11 (1996).
ii. Andrew Scobell, “The Death-Penalty in Post-Mao China” 123 CQ 503-520
(1990).
iii. Anne O. Krueger, “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society” 64 (3)
AER 291-303 (1974).
iv. Arwind K. Jain, “Corruption: A Review” 15 (1) JES 71-121 (2001).
v. Brian Simpson, “The Devlin Commission Report (1959): Colonialism,
Emergencies and the Rule of Law” 22 OJLS 17-52 (2002).
vi. B.R. Weingast, “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving
Federalism and Economic Development” 11 (1) JLEO 1-31 (1995).
vii. Charles A. Reich, “The New Property”, 73 YLJ 733-787 (1964).
viii. Daniel Treisman, “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study” 76 (3)
JPE 399-457 (2000).
ix. David Dollar, Raymond Fisman, et. al., “Are Women Really the „Fairer‟ Sex?
Corruption and Women in Government” 46 (4) JEBO 423-29 (2001).
x. Edwin H. Sutherland, “Crime and Business” 217 AAAP&SS 112-118 (1941).
xi. Hamid Mohtadi and Terry L Roe, “Democracy, Rent Seeking, Public Spending
and Growth” 87 (3-4) JPE 445-466 (2003).
xii. Hongyi Li, Xu Colin et. al., “Corruption, Income Distribution, and Growth” 12
(2) E&P 155-181 (2000).
xiii. Jac C. Heckelman and Benjamin Powell, “Corruption and the Institutional
Environment for Growth” Research Working Paper 2008-6 (Department of
Economics Suffolk University) 1 (2008) available at:
http://192.138.214.118/RePEc/docs/wpaper/2008-6.pdf (visited on July 21, 2016).
xiv. James C. Scott, Comparative Political Corruption, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey, 1972.

26
 xv. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, “An Empirical Investigation of Bribery in International
Trade” 10 EJDR 40-59 (1998).
xvi. Joseph S. Nye, “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis”
61 (2) APSR 417-427 (1967).
xvii. Jose V. Abueva, “The Contributions of Nepotism Spoils and Graft to Political
Development” 3 (1) EWCR 44-54 (1966).
xviii. Justin Esarey and Gina Chirillo, “Fairer Sex” or Purity Myth? Corruption,
Gender, and Institutional Context 9 (4) P&G 361-389 (2013).
xix. Kevin M. Murphy, Andrei Shleifer et. al., “The Allocation of Talent: Implications
for Growth” 106 (2) QJE 503-530 (1991).
xx. Leo V. Ryan, “Combating Corruption: The 21st-Century Ethical Challenge” 10
(1) BEQ 331-338 (2000).
xxi. L. Pellegrini and Reyer Gerlagh, “Causes of Corruption: A Survey of Cross-
Country Analyses and Extended Results” 9 (3) EG 245-263 (2008).
xxii. Nathaniel Leff, “Economic Development through Bureaucratic Corruption” 8 (3)
ABS 8-14 (1964).
xxiii. Norton Rose, “Anti-corruption laws in Asia Pacific” NR11855 01/12 (UK)
(2012). [Online] URL: http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/anti-corruption-
laws-in-asia-pacific-62010.pdf
xxiv. Paolo Mauro, “Corruption and Growth” 110 (3) QJE 681-712 (1995).
xxv. Pranav Bardhan, “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues” 35 (3) JEL
1320-1346 (1997).
xxvi. Rajeev K. Goel and Michael A. Nelson, “Corruption and Government Size: A
Disaggregated Analysis” 97 (1) PC 107-120 (1998).
xxvii. Raymond Fisman and Roberta Gatti, “Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence
across Countries” 83 JPE 325-345 (2002).
xxviii. Sanjeev Gupta, Hamid Davoodi et. al., “Does corruption affect income inequality
and poverty?” 3 EG 23-45 (2002).
xxix. Shang-Jin Wei, “How Taxing Is Corruption on International Investors?” 82 (1)
RES 1-3 (2000).

27
 xxx. Stephen Morse, “Is Corruption Bad for Environmental Sustainability? A Cross-
National Analysis” 11 (1) E&S 22 (2006). [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art22/
xxxi. Toke S. Aidt, “Economic Analysis of Corruption: A Survey” 113 TEJ F632-F652
(2003).
xxxii. Vito Tanzi, “Corruption around the World Causes, Consequences, Scope, and
Cures” 45 (4) IMFSP 559-594 (December, 1998).
xxxiii. Wang Yunhai, “Corruption and Anti-Corruption Policy in Today‟s China” 33
HJLP 1-5 (2005).
xxxiv. Zengke He, “Corruption and anti-corruption in reform China” 33 CPCS 243-270
(2000).

4. LAW REPORTS ETC.

i. Annan Koffi A., foreword to United Nations Convention against Corruption,
General Assembly Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003.
ii. A. Roy, A Manager’s Dilemma: Corruption-related Decision-making, Masters
Thesis, University of Canterbury, N.Z., 2001.
iii. Basic Law Bulletin Issue No. 2 (PDF), Department of Justice, HKSAR (The
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) retrieved from the
official website of the Department of Justice, Hong Kong.
http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/index.html
iv. Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals, (Oxford University Press, 1959).
v. First Five Year Plan (1951-56), (Planning Commission, Government of India,
New Delhi, 1951).
vi. Report No. 238, Expeditious Investigation and Trial of Criminal Cases against
Influential Public Personalities, (Law Commission of India, Ministry of Law and
Justice, New Delhi, 2012).
vii. Report No. 254, The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013, (Law
Commission of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, 2015).
viii. Report No. 258, Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of
Public International Organisations—A Study and Proposed Amendments, (Law
Commission of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, 2015).

28
 ix. Santhanam, K., Report of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption
(Government of India Press, New Delhi, 1964).
x. Statutory Guidance issued by Ministry of Justice under Section 9 of the UK
Bribery Act, 2010.
xi. Table 4.9 and 4.13, Crimes in India, 2010 Statistics, (National Crime Records
Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi).
xii. The Six Principles, given under the Statutory Guidance issued under Section 9 of
the UK Bribery Act, 2010.
xiii. The Wolfenden Report, Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and
Prostitution, (Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, London, 1957).
xiv. 23 Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge, Encyclopedia
Americana Corp., New York, 1918-20.
xv. 47th Report, The Trial and Punishment of Social and economic offences, (Law
Commission of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, 1972).
xvi. § 8B2.1(b), the US Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual

5. MAGAZINES, NEWSPAPERS & E-PAPERS

i. CPI (Corruption Perception Index) Brochure, (Transparency International, Berlin,
Germany, 2012)
ii. CPI (Corruption Perception Index) Brochure, (Transparency International, Berlin,
Germany, 2013)
iii. CPI (Corruption Perception Index) Brochure, (Transparency International, Berlin,
Germany, 2014)
iv. CPI (Corruption Perception Index) Brochure, (Transparency International, Berlin,
Germany, 2015)
v. The Hindu
vi. The Tribune
vii. The Times of India
viii. The Indian Express
ix. Hindustan Times
x. The Pioneer

29
 xi. Deccan Herald
xii. The Economic Times
xiii. DNA
xiv. Business Standard
xv. The Age (Australia)
xvi. Dainik Jagran (Hindi)
xvii. Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi)
xviii. Haribhoomi (Hindi)
xix. The Frontline
xx. India Today

6. WEBSITES
i. http://www.jstor.org/
ii. http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
iii. http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/
iv. http://www.theindiasite.com/
v. http://tribune.com.pk/
vi. http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/
vii. http://zeenews.india.com/
viii. http://www.nber.org/
ix. http://indianexpress.com/
x. http://ibnlive.in.com/
xi. http://www.deccanherald.com/
xii. http://www.ndtv.com/
xiii. http://prem.sabhlokcity.com/
xiv. http://idsa.in/
xv. http://www.dnaindia.com/
xvi. http://www.asthabharati.org/
xvii. http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/
xviii. http://teachers.sduhsd.net/
xix. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/

30
 xx. http://www.bbc.co.uk/
xxi. http://gbtimes.com/
xxii. http://www.theage.com.au/
xxiii. http://www.ethic-intelligence.com/
xxiv. http://thecapitalinthenorth.blogspot.in/
xxv. http://www.india-seminar.com/
xxvi. https://globalvoicesonline.org/
xxvii. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/
xxviii. http://www.unafei.or.jp/
xxix. http://www.fatf-gafi.org/about/
xxx. http://www.gallup.com/
xxxi. https://upload.wikimedia.org/
xxxii. https://www.justice.gov/about (official website, Department of Justice, USA)
xxxiii. http://www.sgrlaw.com/
xxxiv. http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/
xxxv. https://www.justice.gov.uk/
xxxvi. http://www.out-law.com/
xxxvii. http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/
xxxviii. https://www.sfo.gov.uk/
xxxix. http://www.oecd.org/
xl. http://www.business-standard.com/
xli. http://www.hindustantimes.com/
xlii. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
xliii. http://www.sagepub.com/
xliv. http://www.icgg.org/
xlv. https://indiankanoon.org/
xlvi. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
xlvii. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/
xlviii. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/
xlix. http://www.thehindu.com/
l. http://www.prsindia.org/

31
 li. http://speakingthreads.org/
lii. http://barandbench.com/
liii. http://tilakmarg.coms/

32