PREVENTION OF CORRUPTON ACT, 1988: A COMPREHENSIVE

STUDY

India Penal Code I

Submitted by:

Moushita Dutta

SF0114021

2nd Year- 4th Semester

National Law University, Assam

 Content
Table of Cases.................................................................................................ii
Table of Statues...............................................................................................ii
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................ii
Introduction......................................................................................................1-2
Aims and Objectives.........................................................................................
Scopes and Limitations......................................................................................
Review of Literature...........................................................................................
Research Questions.............................................................................................
Research Methodology........................................................................................
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- An Overview........................................
Offences and Penalties under the P.C.A, 1988................................................
Salient Features of the Act.................................................................................
Failures and Scope for Improvement...............................................................
Conclusion...........................................................................................................
References.............................................................................................................iii
Table of Cases
1. A.B Bhaskararao v. Inspector of police C.B.I, Vishakhapatnam
2. Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat
3. M. Radhakrishnan Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
4. Mohd. Jafarulla Khan v. State
5. Mudunuri Bapiraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh
6. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State
7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Prasad Mishra

Table of Statues
1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

List of Abbreviations

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

3. Ors Others

4. SCC Supreme Court Cases

5. PW Public Witness
Abstract
Corruption at all stages of time and all across the world is a common phenomenon. And
India particularly is of the most corrupt countries in the world. In British India, corruption
was under control to a considerable extent, but after independence, the situation has only
become worse. Corruption in India can be found at all levels, particularly among public
servants and in government agencies. For this purpose of tackling corruption, the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted by the Parliament to prevent corruption and deal
related matters. Provisions regarding offences of corruption by public servants were earlier
contained in the Indian Penal Code, from Section 161 to 165-A. But later, it was deemed fit
and necessary by the legislature to enact a special law for matters relating to corruption by
public servants.

Key-words- corruption, prevention, public-servant, offences, penalties, failures

Introduction

Corruption is one of the most menacing dangers India as a country is facing. It is witnessed
all over the world in both developing as well as developed countries. It has spread its
tentacles in every sphere of life, namely business administration, politics and services. In fact,
there is hardly any sector which can be characterised by corruption. Corruption is rampant in
every segment and every section of society, barring the social status attached to it. Nobody
can be considered free from corruption from a high ranking officer to a clerk. In India, the
situation is no different. Infact, Transparency International has in its recent report dealing
with corruption index found India to be the ninth most corrupt country out of 54 countries
taken for a comparative study.1 Previously, India had the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
which was amended in 1964 on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. The
Indian Penal Code also had provisions contained under Chapter IX of the Code to deal with
public servants and their mis-conduct as well those who abet them. The Code had a chapter
on ‘Offences by Public Servants’. Sections 161 to 165 provided the legal framework to
prosecute corrupt public servants. At that time the need for a special law to deal with
corruption was not felt.2 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 did not redefine nor expand
the definition of offences related to corruption the already existing IPC.

1
G. Ramanujan, TOWARDS A CLEANER ADMINISTRATION, 1 LW (1999), p. 82
2
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 5
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was drafted and enacted to bring all relevant laws
relating to corrupt acts particularly by public servants under one single act. This act came into
force from September, 1988. Under the provisions of this Act, several provisions have been
made including appointment of special courts and judges, mode of investigation and the
offences and penalties which came under its ambit. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
consolidates the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1952 and sections 161 to 165 of IPC. By the end of the twentieth century,
India, like many other large countries, had created a number of offices promulgating anti-
corruption measures, such as the Administrative Vigilance Division in the Department of
Personnel and Training, Central Bureau of Investigation, Vigilance Units in the Ministries
and departments of the Government of India and other disciplinary authorities. 3 Apart from
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Law makers have enacted other laws and
provisions to combat corruption in the country. This includes- Article 311 of the Constitution
of India, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Right to Information Act, 2005.
However, mere enacting anti-corruption laws is not enough and there must be a strong
agency and machinery to implement these Acts effectively and prevent the corruption in
public life.

Aim

To study and analyse the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and examine the various
provisions contained under it and also to understand its lacunas.

Objectives

1. To study and understand the purpose and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
2. To study and understand, the main provisions of the Act like Appointment of Special
Judges.
3. To study and understand the success and loopholes of this Act

Scope and Limitations

1. Firstly, to study the purpose and objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
2. Secondly, to study the salient features of the Act

3
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 21
 3. Thirdly, understand the lacunas in the Act.

Review of Literature

1. P.S. Narayana, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1st ed. 2012, Asia
Law House, Hyderabad
This book has been authored by Justice P.S Narayana. This book particularly deals
with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and its provisions in great detail. This
book in a very lucid and comprehensive manner explains with all the provisions of the
P.C.A Act, 1988 alongwith relevant case laws. The book discusses all the details and
is easy to understand and comprehend. The case laws discussed in the book are recent
and highly relevant to the subject-matter. This book has been very useful for
conducting the required research to do the project.

2. G. Ramanujan, TOWARDS A CLEANER ADMINISTRATION, 1 Law Weekly

(1999), Chennai
This article has been authored by G. Ramanujan and published in the Law Weekly. In
this article he talks about corruption in general and also discusses about the P.C.A,
1988 in length. This article also highlights the necessity for having stringent anti-
corruption laws. Through this article, the author talks about the success and failures of
the P.C.A, 1988 and pointed out those aspects which requires considerations and
amendments. This article has been highly useful and relevant to the subject matter of
my research project.

3. P. Sathasivam, SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CORRUPTION AND VIGILANCE

CASES, 2 Law Weekly (2013), Chennai
This article has been authored by Justice P. Sathasivam and has been published in the
Law Weekly. In this article he basically talks about the need for speedy disposal of
corruption and vigilance cases booked under the P.C.A, 1988. This Act particularly
discusses the issue in light of the public servants who are charged under the P.C.A,
1988. The author speaks about why there is a need for amendment in the existing laws
so as to speed up the trial process.
Research Questions

1. What is the purpose and objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. What the salient features of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. How far as been the P.C.A, 1988 successful in controlling corruption?
4. What are the failures of the Act?

Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted to do this research project is purely doctrinal. As per
the requirement of the topic under study, research has been carried out by carefully
studying and analysing the available books, journals and articles related to the subject
matter and by applying proper analytical reasoning. The sources of information used to
do the project are secondary sources which includes various books and articles authored
by experts. This had helped to facilitate a better understanding of the topic under study.
This investigation helped to take out those aspects which had not been examined or
explored by some previous researchers. Quality of a doctrinal research highly depends
upon the source material on which the researcher depends.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: An Overview

The Prevention of Corruption Act came into force in September 1988. It consolidated the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, some sections of the Indian Penal Code
and the Criminal Procedure Code. The main purpose behind enacting the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 was to create an altogether separate law to deal with offences relating
to corruption- with a special emphasis on public servants. Bribery and taking of other forms
of illegal gratification by public servants had increased to a massive extent after the
independence. Such public servants were found to have had amassed huge wealth, and the
exist..ing provisions of the IPC and the CrPC seemed to tackle this problem. For this purpose,
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was passed.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Act was not very wide in its scope and had many
draw-backs and lacunas. The declared such corrupt acts offences as taking bribe,
misappropriation, obtaining a pecuniary advantage, possessing assets dis-appropriate to
income, and abusing official position.4 Hence, a need was felt to have a more effective,
consistent and strict law to curb the problem of corruption. Under such circumstances after a
careful review of the country’s legal framework, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
drafted and enacted. Subsequently, it came into force from the month of September, 1988.
The P.C.A, 1988 enlarged the scope of the term ‘public servant’ and included a large number
of employees within its ambit. This Act extends to whole of India except the state Jammu and
Kashmir as stated in the Statute’s preamble and applies to all Indian citizens, whether living
in the country or outside it. Besides the employees of the central government and the union
territories, the employees of public undertakings, nationalised banks, office-bearers of
cooperative societies of the central and the state government receiving financial aid,
employees of the University Grants Commission (UGC), vice-chancellors, professors, and
scientists in institutions receiving financial aid from the central or state governments or even
from the local authorities have all been declared as public servants. 5 However, though
Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies performing ‘public duties’,
have been kept out of the ambit of the Act. The Act covers all the ‘corrupt’ acts as covered by
the P.C.A, 1947 Act which includes, bribe, misappropriation, obtaining pecuniary advantage,
possessing assets disproportionate to income, etc. The terms ‘public servant’ and ‘public
duty’ have been defined under Chapter I of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 21
5
G. Ramanujan, TOWARDS A CLEANER ADMINISTRATION, 1 LW (1999), p. 82
This Act provides for appointment of special judges who may be appointed by the State or
Central Government upon official notification. These special judges are to be appointed for a
particular area or group of areas or for a particular case as necessary. The provisions
regarding appointment of special judges, their powers and procedures and the cases triable by
special judges has been dealt with under Chapter II of the Act.

Chapter III of the P.C.A, 1988 deals with the offences and penalties. If the offence against the
public servant is proved in the courts, it is punishable with imprisonment of not less than six
months but extending to a maximum period of seven years.6 Six months imprisonment is thus
mandatory and the courts have no discretion in this regard. If public servant is found
committing offence habitually, he liable to be punished with imprisonment of not less than
two years but not more than seven years alongwith a fine.

Chapter IV of the Act of 1988 provides for the provisions regarding the procedure for
investigation of cases charged under the Act. It deals with the provisions like who are the
persons authorised to investigate the cases. Chapter V of the Act, provides for some other
miscellaneous provisions and sanction for prosecution.

6
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 123
Offences and Penalties under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Sections 7 to 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for the various kinds of
offences and penalties which are included within the ambit of the Act. These sections aims to
include almost every relevant offence so as to make the law stringent.

Section 7 of the Act deals with a public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act. This section provides that if any person who is a
public servant induces a person to believe that in his official function, he can offer a favour or
disfavour to the person, receives a gratification, other than legal remuneration which he is
permitted to take by the government or the organisation he serves has committed an offence
under this section. Therefore, the person is punishable with imprisonment which shall not be
less than 6 months but which may extend upto five years and shall also be liable to fine. Here
the word ‘gratification’ is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications
estimable by money.7

In Mudunuri Bapiraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh8, it was held that – as far as section 7 is
concerned, the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish that the appellant demanded
illegal gratification to show an official favour and received or agreed to receive the same.
After, discharge of the said burden only, the burden onto the appellant to rebut the same
shifts.9

In the case of M. Radhakrishnan Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 10, there was a demand of
Rs. 4000 and an amount of Rs. 2000 was paid on 13th June, 1989. A trap was conducted by
the prosecution while the accused was to receive the remaining Rs. 2000 from PW1 on the
19th of June 1989. The court in its judgment held that- even otherwise, as already stated, the
trap was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.11

In Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. State of Gujarat12, it was held that-

“it is to be noted that both the trial court and High Court have analysed the evidence in great
detail and have found that the appellant had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 200 from

7
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 125
8
Mudunuri Bapiraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) ALLD (Crl) 314 (A.P)
9
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 166
10
M. Radhakrishnan Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (2) ALD Crl 339 (AP)
11
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 126
12
Bechaarbhai S. Prajapati v. Union of India, 2009 CrLJ 1158
the complainant for allowing the luxury bus to go for destination. The tainted currency notes
were recovered from the appellant. The phenolphthalein test was carried out of the hands of
the raiding party but no traces were found. Similar test was carried out on the hands of the
complainant. It has also been established that the numbers of the currency notes were
matched with the denominations mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum.”13

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Prasad Mishra14, it was held that –

“it is equally settled that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if
spoken in favour of the prosecution or accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and
that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence
may be accepted.”15

Thereafter, Section 8 of the Act is complementary of Section 7. 16

Section 9 of the P.C.A,1988 deals with taking gratification for exercise of personal influence
with public servant. Under the provisions of this section, if any person accepts or obtains or
agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person any kind of gratification to exercise
]personal influence with a public servant whether named or unnamed, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term not less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.

Section 10 of the Act deals with punishment for abetment by public servant of offences
defined in Section 8 or 9. This means that under the provision of this section, when a public
servant is abets any offence described under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, irrespective of the
Act being committed or not shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than
six months and which may extend upto five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 11 of the Act deals with public servant obtaining valuable thing without
consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public
servants.17

13
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 131
14
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Prasad Mishra, 1996 (2) ALD Crl 648 (SC)
15
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 164
16
Ibid. p. 181
17
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 188
Section 12 provides for the punishment for abetment of offences defined in Sections 7 and 11
of the Act.

In the case of Mohd. Jafarulla Khan v. State18, where the first accused alleged to have asked
the complainant to hand over the bribe to the second accused and the first received the said
amount from the second accused and it is not shown that the second accused had knowledge
about the nature of the amount and as such, the second accused cannot be convicted.19

Section 13 of the Act deals with the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant.
Section 13 is one of the most important sections of the P.C.A, 1988. This section contains
two Sub-Section – (1) and (2). Sub-Section (1), deals with the provisions where a public
servant is found to be habitually involved in accepting, obtaining or agreeing and attempting
to accept and obtain illegal gratification as a motive or reward for showing favour in official
capacity. Mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be
sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). There must be evidence on
record that accused 'obtained' any amount by corrupt or illegal means-A public servant found
doing so would be guilty of criminal mis-conduct. Sub-Section (2), provides that any public
servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine.20 Section 14 deals with habitual committing of offences described under
Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the P.C.A, 1988. It provides that any public servant who habitually
commits the offences provided under Sections 8, 9 and 12 shall be punishable for a term
which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine.

Section 15 of the Act deals with the punishment for attempt to commit an offence referred to
in clause (c) or (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13. It provides that any public servant guilty
of attempting to commit the offences under the above mentioned sections shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with a fine.

Section 16 of the Act deals with matters to be taken into consideration for fixing fine says
that where a sentence of fine is imposed under Section 13 (2) or Section 14, the Court in
fixing the amount or the value of the property, if any, which the accused person has obtained

18
Mohd. Jafarulla Khan v. State, 2000 (4) ALD 665
19
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 189
20
Ibid. p. 195
by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in Section 13
(1) (e), the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused
person is unable to account satisfactorily.21

Chapter III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has dealt with all possible offences that
a public servant may tend to commit in his official capacity. The sections contained under
this chapter also provides stringent penalties and punishments so as to make the law more
effective.

21
P.S Narayana, THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1 st ed. 2012, p. 223
Salient Features of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed and enforced to effectively deal
with offences relating to corruption in the public sector. The earlier Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 was found to be inadequate to effectively regulate corruption at all levels.
Moreover, the provisions relating to public servants under the Indian Penal Code was also
much of significance. As such, there was a need to have a separate and stricter law to curb the
problem of corruption. This resulted in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Some of its
salient features which makes it stringent and stronger than the previous laws has been
discussed below-

1. Enlarged Scope of ‘Public Servant’

The P.C.A, 1988 has enlarged the definition of public servant to include a large
number of employees within its ambit. Under the provisions of this Act besides the
employees of the central government and the union territories, the employees of
public undertakings, nationalised banks, office-bearers of cooperative societies of the
central and the state government receiving financial aid, employees of the University
Grants Commission (UGC), vice-chancellors, professors, and scientists in institutions
receiving financial aid from the central or state governments or even from the local
authorities have all been declared as public servants. Public duty has been defined
under Section 2(b) of the Act to be a duty in the discharge of which the state, the
public or the community at large has an interest.22 In the case of P.V Narasimha Rao
v. State23, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court laid down that a member of a
parliament hold such a office by the virtue of which he is required to perform his
duties and such duties are in nature of public duties.

2. Prescription of a minimum penalty of six months

The P.C.A, 1988 has prescribed a minimum punishment of atleast six months which
may extend upto seven years with a fine for all offences committed under this Act. In
A.B. Bhaskararao v. Inspector of Police, C.B.I Vishakhapatnam 24, an important issue
was raised. This issue was if the courts were empowered to reduce the minimum
sentence prescribed in the Act. Here, Justice P. Sathasivam held that- “Long delay in

22
P. Sathasivam, SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CORRUPTION AND VIGILANCE CASES, 2 LW (2012), p. 25
23
P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, 1998 Crl. L.J 2930
24
A.B. Bhaskararao v. Inspector of Police, C.B.I Vishakhapatnam, (2011) 10 SCC 259
 disposal of appeal may not be a ground, for reduction of sentence, particularly when
the Statue prescribes minimum sentence.”25

3. Presumption in favour of the complainant

Under the Act, the prosecution has the initial responsibility to establish the offence.
The public servant can no longer sit tight and wait for the prosecution to conclusively
prove his guilt beyond doubt and hold the dictum that until the contrary is proved
everyone in the face of law is deemed innocent. 26 Therefore, if the prosecution is able
to establish with evidence on record that the specific actions of the public servant is
an offence or misconduct under the provisions of the P.C.A, 1988, then it is the duty if
the public servant to explain his actions satisfactorily.

4. Freezing of Properties assumed to the proceeds of a crime during trial

Though there is a separate law, which deals with the freezing, seizure and
confiscation of properties illegally obtained, Section 5 of the P.C.A, 1988 also
empowers the Special Judge to exercise all the powers and functions under the said
law during trial.27

25
P. Sathasivam, SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CORRUPTION AND VIGILANCE CASES, 2 LW (2012), p. 26
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid. p. 27
Failures and Scope for Improvement

Prevention of any offense plays a critical role in occurrence of that crime in future. 28 The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enforced with the objective of controlling increasing
corruption in the government and administration. A very noble cause was behind the
enactment of this Act. Infact, this Act was enacted and enforced to rectify the irregularities
and inconsistencies of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and certain provisions relating
to public servants contained between Sections 161 to 167 of the Indian Penal Code. But this
Act too failed in certain instances. The Supreme Court of Indian and the High Courts in some
of its judgements had also observed certain defects and inconsistencies in the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. It is also observed that, corrupt public servants always take benefit and
undue advantage of these defects under the law.29 Also, the Investigating agencies constituted
under the said act, consists a number of defects suffers from lack of coordination and
overlapping and conflicting mandates between institutions.30 Due to political pressure and
interference from influential politicians investigating agencies and mechanism of legal
machinery become helpless and politicians and senior officials who are involved in corrupt
practices are rarely convicted. Accused in cases under the P.C.A, 1988 also tends to take
undue advantage of the loop holes in the existing laws to escape from the clutches of law.

The investigative authorities empowered to investigate corruption cases as provided by the

P.C.A, 1988 are the Central Bureau of Investigation, Central Vigilance Commission,
Enforcement Directorate and the Chief Information Commission. A part of the officers
appointed to these investigative agencies takes place on the recommendation of some
influential politicians and bureaucrats. Naturally such officers tend to show favours to those
accused in corruption cases. Moreover, since these agencies are under the control of the
government, they witness high degree of interference from politicians and senior government
officials. This hampers the course of investigation. As such there is need to make these
investigative agencies, responsible for investigating high profile corruption cases free from
un-necessary and unwanted government interference. Therefore, until and unless there is
functional autonomy, these investigative agencies authorised under the P.C.A, 1988 cannot
perform its functions to its best ability.

28
G. Ramanujan, TOWARDS A CLEANER ADMINISTRATION, 1 LW (1999), p. 82
29
P. Sathasivam, SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CORRUPTION AND VIGILANCE CASES, 2 LW (2012), p. 25
30
Ibid
Also there are delays in prosecution of public servants against whom complaints have been
made, because of overload of such cases. Also, there is lack of adequate number of judges in
the judiciary to preside over the cases. In cases of corruption, it is extremely important that
prosecution does not take long time and this often affects the interest of the complainant and
the witnesses in the case. Again recovery of assets which are the proceeds of the crime
consumes a lot of time and it remains a big challenge for the investigative agencies. Another
important lacuna of this existing law is that it only addresses public servants and government
officers or officers of establishments receiving government aid. It provides nothing to tackle
and regulate corruption in private sector. Though, corruption is mostly found in government
agencies and among public servants, the private sector is not completely free from corruption.
Corruption in private sector includes amassing black-money, trade influencing, abuse of
power and others. However, there is no law in place to regulate corruption in private sector.
Also in many instances, it is found that the prosecution to be incompetent and as such cannot
properly establish the facts and evidences available before the court. Taking advantage of
this, the accused that is the defence manipulates the evidence in its favour. Also appropriate
cases must be disposed of summarily.31 All the respective High Court using its supervisory
powers should give timely directions to these special courts for speedy disposal of old cases
on priority basis and also keep constant vigilance on the working of these courts.32 Again
there is a need to develop improved co-ordination between the investigative agencies and the
public prosecutor so that the trial can progress without any short-coming due to lack of
proper evidence and examination of the witnesses.

Thus, these are some of the lacuna which can be seen in the existing Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Inorder, to make the existing law more effective, it is important- firstly, to grant a
considerable functional autonomy to the investigative agencies. And secondly, there is need
to increase the appointment of judges in the judiciary so that there is speedy disposal of such
cases relating to corruption and vigilance. If these strategies are implemented, then the
existing P.C.A, 1988 can be more effective.

31
P. Sathasivam, SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CORRUPTION AND VIGILANCE CASES, 2 LW (2012), p. 36
32
Ibid
Conclusion

Corruption is one of the obstacles which obstruct the growth and progress of a country.
Corruption is exists in all countries at various degrees; be it developed, under-developed or
developing countries. Its prevention and effective penalising is one of the ways to curb the
menace. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted and enforced with this
objective. It was enacted with the intended purpose of consolidating and amending the law
relating to the prevention of corruption. It particularly enlarged the scope of a ‘public servant’
and repealed the Sections 161 to 167 of the Indian Penal Code relating to offences committed
by public servants. This Act also enhanced the penalties provided for offences relating to
corruption by public servants and even incorporated provisions for freezing the property of
the accused which is suspected to be the proceeds of corrupt activities. However, this Act has
certain draw-backs and lacunas which needs to filled up. The judiciary has an active role to
play in this. This is because, if corruption is to be cured then there is the need for a highly
strong and stringent legal frame-work along with a highly committed judiciary. Speedy
disposal of corruption and vigilance cases has a direct bearing in lessening the corrupt
practises. It is the fear of prompt conviction, which will curb potential offenders from the
commission of the offence. To curb corruption, there must an increased and improved co-
ordination and support among the investigative agencies, disciplinary committees,
enforcement agencies and the judiciary. If only these essentials are fulfilled, the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 will really be successful in this functioning or for that sense any law.
References

List of Books

i. P.S. Narayana, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, 1st ed. 2012, Asia
Law House, Hyderabad

List of Journal Articles

i. G. Ramanujan, TOWARDS A CLEANER ADMINISTRATION, 1 Law Weekly

(1999), Chennai

ii. P. Sathasivam, SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CORRUPTION AND VIGILANCE

CASES, 2 Law Weekly (2013), Chennai