Privileged Class Deviance

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi & Approved by Bar Council of India
& AICTE)
E-NOTES
CLASS : LLM (CJS)

SUBJECT CODE : CJS 122
SUBJECT NAME : Privileged Class Deviance
FACULTY : Ms. Neerja
UNIT- IV
The requirement of prior sanction of the Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 provided an umbrella shield for corrupt public servants who were accused of any
offence alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in discharge of
their official duty. The Supreme Court in Vineet Narayan v. Union of India,(1998) I SCC 226,
observed that the corruption cases against the public servant were often delayed due to refusal or
delayed sanction by the competent authority despite the investigation agency having disclosed a
prima-facie case against the public servant. The Court held that sanction to prosecute not being a
quasi-judicial function, the competent authority must give sanction if it is satisfied that material
placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant. The Supreme Court in the case of
Jaylalitha v. Union of India,(1999) 5 SCC 138, observed that corruption erodes the moral fabric of
the society and is detrimental to national economy. Misuse and abuse of power by persons occupying
high positions in the Government has reached alarming dimensions and it has tarnished the image of
the country. Giving the term 'public servant' a wide interpretation, the Supreme Court in Government
of Andhra Pradesh v. P. V. Reddy,AIR 2002 SC 3346, held that with a view to curb corruption at
all levels, it would be appropriate not to limit the definition of public servant only to Government
officials but it should also include employees of a co-operative society which is aided and controlled
by the Government. The Supreme Court, in Subramanium Swamy v. Dr. Man Mohan Singh,AIR
2012 SC 1185, reiterated that the time-limit of three months for grant of government sanction under
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of public servant alleged of
corruption charges, must be strictly followed without delay. In Ram Narayan Poply v. C.B.I.,AIR
2003 SC 2748, the Apex Court expressed concern for adverse effects of white collar crimes and held
Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040
Ph: 011-35044787 Website: www.cpj.edu.in. E-mail: cpj.chs@gmail.com
&
School of Law
& AICTE)
that economic offenders should not be allowed to ruin the economy of the country and they should be
sternly dealt with. In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, the validity of the Special Bearer Bonds
(Immunities & Exemption) Act, 1981 was challenged on the ground that it extended undue benefit to
tax-evadors. The Court upholding the validity of the Act, held thatthe Act was not intended to
encourage tax-evasion in future and 4 condone such evasion committed in past but the real object of
the Act was enacted to launch a nation-wide search to unearth undisclosed money by encouraging
small incentive. The main intention was to unearth black-money so as to prevent loss to the
Government. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI,AIR 2013 SC 2821, the appellant along
with Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, enriched himself for more than 40,000 crores of rupees by the
influence of Jagan Mohan's father Dr. Y.S. Rajasekharan Reddy who was the then Chief Minister of
Andhra Pradesh. The Chief Minister, Late Dr. Reddy extended many undue favours to the appellant
by abusing his official position and thereby allotting 18878 acres of land to the appellant and in
return, he paid illegal gratifications amounting to 854.5 crores rupees to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
and his ofgroup of companies. Illegal gratifications were paid in the guise investments/share
application money to give them corporate colour in order to escape criminal charges. The appellant's
prayer for bail was dismissed by the Supreme Court in view of the fact that he was involved in a
grave economic offence of alienating prime lands to selected private companies/individuals under the
garb of development using deceptive means resulting in wrong ownership and control of material
resources detrimental to the common good. Since CBI was required to obtain documents from
different Banks, other private companies and individuals who had 5 facilitated the said diversion of
funds, the release of the appellant on bail was not in the interest of justice though he was already in
jail for the last eleven months. The Court noted that the appellant was a person of means and as such,
he could influence witnesses, therefore, it would not be proper to release him on bail
The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 is a crucial legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament,
it came into effect on September 09, 1988, to combat corruption and promote integrity in public
administration. In the pre-1988 era, India lacked a comprehensive law specifically targeting
corruption. The absence of a robust legal framework hindered the effective prosecution of corrupt
individuals and fostered a culture of impunity. Recognizing the need to address this pressing issue,
the Indian government enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 to provide a specialized
legal framework for combating corruption. With the enactment of this Act, the provisions of the
&
School of Law
& AICTE)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (which acted as a model for its enactment) were consolidated.
The Act defines corruption and its various forms, including bribery, abuse of power, and illicit
enrichment. It covers public servants, both in the government and public sector undertakings, who
engage in corrupt practices. In India, there is no law that specifically prohibits bribery in the private
sector. However, the same can be done through the Companies Act, 2013 which penalizes ‘Fraud’ in
connection with the company affairs. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, safeguards the rights
of individuals and aims to prevent the coercive practice of demanding substantial payments from
citizens by government officials in exchange for completing official tasks. This practice, commonly
referred to as bribery, is deemed illegal by the Indian government.
The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 has undergone an amendment to address emerging
challenges and strengthen the fight against corruption. The amended Act is known as the Prevention
of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. This amendment introduced several crucial changes,
including the criminalization of bribe-giving, the protection of public officials from malicious or
vexatious complaints, and the establishment of special courts for speedy trials of corruption cases. It
also introduced provisions for the attachment and confiscation of property acquired through corrupt
means. These amendments aimed to enhance the Act's efficacy and streamline the judicial process.
This article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Act, its key provisions, and its
significance in curbing corrupt practices.
Key Provisions: the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Important Definitions
 Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act includes several important definitions that help
clarify the scope and application of the Act. The two most important definitions defined in the
Act include, ‘public duty’ and public servant’.
 Public duty means “a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at
large has an interest.”
 The Act defines a public servant as:
 any person who holds an office by virtue of appointment, election, or nomination in a
government or statutory body or performs public duties or receives government compensation
or receives commission or fees from the government;
 any person who works for or is paid by a local authority;

&
School of Law
& AICTE)
 any person who is employed or is paid by a corporation established under a Central,
Provincial, or State Act, or an authority controlled or owned or aided by a Government
Company or the Government as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;
 “any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a
member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;
 any person authorized by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the
administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver, or commissioner appointed by such
court;
 any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or
report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;
 any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish,
maintain, or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;
 any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any
public duty;
 any person who is the president, secretary, or other office-bearer of a registered cooperative
society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade, or banking, receiving or having received any
financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation
established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or
controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956;
 any person who is a chairman, member, or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by
whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such
Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf
of such Commission or Board;
 any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader,
lecturer, or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University
and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public
authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations;
 any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social,
cultural, or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any

&
School of Law
& AICTE)
financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other
public authority.”
 Other definitions including election, prescribed, undue advantage gratification, and legal
remuneration are also defined in this Section for clarity and removal of ambiguity.
Appointment of Special Judges
The appointment of special judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 is an important
aspect of ensuring the effective adjudication of corruption cases. The Act recognizes the need for
expeditious disposal of corruption cases and establishes special courts or designates specific judges to
hear such cases. Section 3 of the Act illustrates the ‘Power to appoint special Judges’. It states “The
Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as
many special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as
may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely: (a) any offence punishable
under this Act; and (b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of
the offences specified in clause (a).” The Act also highlights that “A person shall not be qualified for
appointment as a special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an
Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure,” as
mentioned in Section 3(2) of the Act.
Offences and Penalties under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
 Offenses and penalties under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are outlined in various
sections of the Act. Here are some of the key offenses and their corresponding sections:
 Section 7: ‘Offence relating to public servant being bribed’
 Offence: Any Public servant who accepts or obtains gratification other than legal
remuneration as a motive or reward for performing or abstaining from performing an official
act.
 Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not less than three years, which may extend to seven years
and a fine.
 Section 8: ‘Offence relating to bribing of a public servant’
 Offence: A public servant who accepts or obtains any bribe as a motive or reward for
performing or abstaining from performing an official act. Section 8 states “Any person who
gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention (i)

&
School of Law
& AICTE)
to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty or (ii) to reward such public
servant for the improper performance of public duty.”
 Penalty: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with a fine or both.
 Section 9: ‘Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organization’
 Offence: A public servant who accepts or obtains any bribe as a motive or reward for showing
favor or disfavor in the exercise of official functions.
 Penalty: If a person in charge of a commercial organization committing an offence under
Section 9 of the Act is found to be guilty then the offender shall be “punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine,” as mentioned in Section 10 of the Act.
 Section 11: ‘Public servant obtaining [undue advantage], without consideration from person
concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant’
 Offence: A public servant who, by corrupt or illegal means, obtains any valuable thing
without any consideration from a person who is concerned in any proceeding or business
transacted by such public servant.
 Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not less than six months, which may extend to five years,
and a fine.
 Section 13: ‘Criminal misconduct by a public servant’
 Offence: A public servant who, by corrupt or illegal means, obtains any pecuniary advantage
for himself or any other person or possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income. Section 13 states that “A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct, (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his
own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or
allows any other person so to do; or (b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the
period of his office.”
 Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not less than four years, which may extend to ten years, and
a fine.
 Apart from this, Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, states that “Whoever
abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in
consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall

&
School of Law
& AICTE)
not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.” Also, in Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, habitual offenders are
punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years, which may extend to 10 years,
and are liable to fine.
Investigations
Investigation of corruption cases is done by a police officer, Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, illustrates powers authorized to investigate the cases. It states that “no police
officer below the rank, (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of
Police; (b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Ahmedabad and in any other
metropolitan area…, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police; and (c) elsewhere, of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence
punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first
class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant.” It means that no officer
other than approved officials can conduct investigations or make arrests until an order is obtained
from the Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of First Class.
The higher rank officials including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), state Anti-Corruption
Bureaus (ACBs), and Vigilance Departments investigate corruption cases. These agencies possess
wide-ranging powers, such as search and seizure, interception of communications, and the authority
to arrest individuals suspected of corrupt practices. The CBI is a premier investigative agency with
jurisdiction over corruption cases involving central government employees and public servants. State
ACBs are responsible for investigating corruption cases within their respective states. Additionally,
Vigilance Departments in various government departments and organizations have the authority to
probe corruption allegations against their own employees. These authorized entities play a crucial
role in uncovering corruption, gathering evidence, and initiating legal proceedings against the
accused.
Apart from this, there are certain restrictions related to the investigation in some cases which are
mentioned under Section 17A of the Amendment Act, 2018. It illustrates that no police officer can
investigate the case if it involves a decision/recommendation made by a public servant in the course
of his official responsibilities. If such an investigation is to be performed then the approval of the
Central Government involving Union matters and State Government involving state affairs is
required.
&
School of Law
& AICTE)
Attachment of Property
Section 17C of the Act empowers authorities to take action to prevent the disposal or transfer of
properties that are suspected to be proceeds of corruption or linked to corrupt practices. The Act
allows for the attachment of any property, both movable and immovable, which is believed to be the
proceeds of corruption or connected to corrupt activities. This includes assets acquired through illegal
gratification or disproportionate to the known sources of income. As defined in the Act, the
competent authority has the power to initiate the attachment proceedings. This authority is usually a
designated officer or an agency responsible for investigating corruption cases, such as the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or state Anti-Corruption Bureaus (ACBs).
Forfeiture of Property
According to Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the attachment and forfeiture of
property is performed under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. In
context with this Act, the references to ‘District Judge’ in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance,
1944 are construed as references to ‘Special Judge’.
Related Case Laws
 Parkash Singh Badal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors, (December 06, 2006)
 Vasant Rao Guhe vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (August 09, 2017)
 Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat (April 24, 2002)
 Indira Devi vs. the State of Rajasthan (July 23, 2021)
 Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell & Ors. vs. Ramesh Gelli
& Ors. (February 23, 2016)
Conclusion
The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 has significantly contributed to India's fight against
corruption. By providing a robust legal framework, defining offenses, and establishing stringent
penalties, the Act has helped hold corrupt individuals accountable. While the Act has been
instrumental in curbing corruption, challenges persist. These challenges include the need for better
coordination among investigative agencies, reducing delays in trials, and addressing the issue of
political interference in corruption cases. Additionally, there is a growing recognition of the
importance of preventive measures and ethical conduct in complementing punitive actions. However,
&
School of Law
& AICTE)
continuous efforts are necessary to address the challenges and strengthen the Act's implementation. It
is crucial to promote a culture of integrity and transparency to complement legal measures and foster
a corruption-free society.
Vigilance Commission
The Indian government introduced the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in the year 1964. The
commission was set up on the recommendation of K. Santhanam Committee on Prevention of
Corruption. It was originally introduced through an executive resolution. The Central Vigilance
Committee’s role is to advise and guide the Central Government in the field of surveillance.
The Central Vigilance Commission had specified the eligibility criteria for empanelment of eminent
persons for nomination as Independent External Monitors (IEM) for adoption and implementation of
Integrity Pact.
Subsequently, the Commission has received feedback and suggestions from Chief Vigilance Officers
and other individuals, regarding the eligibility criteria.
On consideration and analysis of the same, the Commission has decided to modify the eligibility
criteria.
The zone of consideration of eminent persons for empanelment as IEMs to oversee implementation of
Integrity Pact would now consist of –
Officer who has held the post of Additional Secretary to Government of India or were in equivalent
or higher pay scale, at the time of retirement (whether serving with Government of India or any State
Government).
Persons who have held the post of CMD of Schedule ‘A’ Public Sector Enterprise and were
equivalent or higher to Additional Secretary to Government of India at the time of retirement.
Persons who have held the post of CMD/MD and CEO of Public Sector Banks, Insurance companies
and other financial institutions, at the time of retirement.
Chief Executive Officer of an organisation (other than listed above), who were equivalent or higher to
Additional Secretary to Government of India, at the time of retirement.
Officers of Armed Forces, who were in the pay scale of equivalent or higher to Additional Secretary
to Government of India, at the time of retirement.
Further, the commission has decided that the proposal for nomination of IEMs in the respective
organisations should be sent by the concerned department responsible for ensuring implementation of
&
School of Law
& AICTE)
the Integrity Pact in the organisation after taking approval from the competent authority.
The proposal for nomination of IEMs should preferably be sent 3 months prior to the completion of
tenure of the existing IEMs, failing which the commission would nominate IEMs on its own, from the
panel, being maintained by it.
What is the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)?
It is an agency constituted to curb corruption in offices of the Indian government. Complaints from
whistleblowers (an employee of the firm/public office informing the public about frauds/wrongdoings
in the office) under ‘Whistleblower Resolution’ are received by CVC after which the commission can
take actions on motivated acts.
CVC is called the apex vigilance institution. It is free of control from any executive authority. Its role
is to monitor all vigilance activity under the Central Government and advising various authorities in
Central Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance
work.
What is the work of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)?
The following are the works of CVC members:
 They inquire or investigate whenever a public servant (Central Government employee)
commits an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
 They inquire or investigate against following officials who commit an offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
 Members of all-India services serving in the Union and Group ‘A’ officers of the Central
government
 The specified level of officers of the authorities of the Central government
 They superintend the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in cases
related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
 They direct Delhi Special Police Establishment in investigative cases related to the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988
 They review the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment in cases related Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
 They review the progress of those applications that are pending with competent authorities for
sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

&
School of Law
& AICTE)
 Central Government and its authorities are advised on matters as they refer to CVC members
 They also superintend vigilance departments of government ministries
 They undertake or cause an inquiry into complaints received under Whistleblower Resolution
and recommend appropriate action.
 Whenever the central government makes rules and regulations governing the vigilance and
disciplinary matters relating to members of Central Services and All-India Services, CVC is
consulted.
 CVC members are part of the selection committee which is responsible to recommend the
appointment of the Director of Enforcement (ED.)
 CVC is a part of the selection committee that recommends officers for appointments to the
posts above the level of Deputy Director of Enforcement.
 The Commission acts as an authority to receive information that is related to suspicious
transactions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
 It recommends to Central Government for the appointment of Director of Prosecution
in Central Bureau of Investigation
 CVC members are part of a selection committee that is responsible to recommend the
appointment of officers to the posts of the level of SP and above in the CBI except for the
Director of CBI
 Lokpal refers complaints to CVC who initiate a preliminary inquiry in respect of officers and
officials of Groups A, B, C & D
What is the Public Accounts Committee?
Public Accounts Committee was introduced in 1921 after its first mention in the Government of India
Act, 1919 also called Montford Reforms. It is existing in the Indian Constitution since then. Know in
detail about the Montague Chelmsford reforms on the given link.
PAC is one of the parliamentary committees that examine the annual audit reports of CAG, which the
President lays before the Parliament of India. Those three reports submitted by CAG are:
 Audit report on appropriation accounts
 Audit report on finance accounts
 Audit report on public undertakings
The Public Accounts Committee examines public expenditure. That public expenditure is not only

&
School of Law
& AICTE)
examined from a legal and formal point of view to discover technical irregularities but also from the
point of view of the economy, prudence, wisdom, and propriety. The sole purpose to do this is to
bring out cases of waste, loss, corruption, extravagance, inefficiency, and nugatory expenses.


Privileged Class Deviance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Privileged Class Deviance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Privileged Class Deviance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies

CLASS : LLM (CJS)

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

Campus: Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, Delhi-110040

You might also like