 Good evening. After Mr. M. Arvind Subramaniam has become a designated senior. He's coming for the first time on our platform. First of all, on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and all those viewers who have been connected with Beyond Law CLC. We congratulate you on being designated as a senior advocate, which itself shows that not only the viewers but the high court also acknowledges the facet that you have been a bridge between the bar and the bench to understand and facilitate different topics as a lawyer and also as well as other different resource persons at different platforms. Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as a mandatory date. We have taken sessions. We have also taken sessions where Mr. Biljinder Singh Sirar, who is an additional district and session judge, as well as who had been a resource person in the Chandigarh Judicial Academy. I would be very candid. The view, the insights being given from the other side would always have a different perspective. A lawyer who does gives the insights, meaning thereby he will give you the nitty gritties in a different way so that you can understand what all has to be seen so that your client gets the relief in the legitimate manner. What are the pitfalls which has come across in the judicial journey, which one can understand. We have been connected through Adilakshmi, the legal legal group who has been helping us to connect resource persons from down south and the team of Beyond Law CLC is also indebted in this regard. Mr. Advan Subramaniam has a niche on the practice on the judicial side. I am saying more specifically because normally as a common man, but would always sometimes ask, can you recommend me someone who is a criminal lawyer? So I would not say that he is a criminal lawyer, but he is the lawyer who practices on the criminal side. So that interplay of the words like criminal lawyer and that lawyer practicing on the criminal side are the differences which while interpreting while make submissions makes you a person who is a designated senior. Just taught various students in this field because of his vast knowledge, which he funnels and channelizes it. I will ask Mr. Arvind to take over the session. Thank you very much Vikas. Thank you very much for introducing me and thank you very much for introducing me to the viewers. Before I start, I would like to give a brief pollute to the corruption act itself. Am I audible Vikas? Am I audible? Perfect. So I am going to give a brief pollute to the prevention of corruption act where the entire system, I am not talking about today, the system of corruption existed centuries back. If you take the British era, we can start from Lord Cornwallis who took 100,000 Indian rupees in 1760 to make X minister in the Hyder Ali cabinet. This is how it started and the British I would say are the foreigners for this evil called corruption. This is how it all started and it was rampant in those days. Even during the British period, if you take Robert Clyde, who was then the Governor-General, he had looted India to the tune of 7.4 million pounds in those days. I am talking about 1748 and when he was asked how he was able to amass so much of wealth, he was quite surprised and he said, I am really astonished at my own modesty. This is how they all started and this is how the entire system of corruption got imbibed into the Indian system. Now in 1860, I would say that even during the 1860s, the corruption which was slowly permeating was leading to gigantic sizes because the British had a company to camouflage their corruption activities. It was called the East India Company. The East India Company was acting as a camouflage. Now we call it as a money laundering act that exactly what they were doing in those days. The East India Company was the front under which all the corruption activities took place. It slowly started permeating into the education system and it was only then, it was supposed to mean it was prior to independence and it was only then the British thought that they should bring an act to prevent corruption, especially in the education sector. It started with the education sector. Now in one of the cases, a university head or a chancellor as you call it now took 20,000 rupees for appointment of a professor and this is how the Prevention of Corruption Act was thought about by the British. The curb activities of corruption which was becoming rampant under the British system itself. Then in 1944, they set up a committee to examine the corruption activities and to monitor the corruption activities and it was only then the criminal ordinance, that is the criminal ordinance of 1944 was enacted which covered the corruption activities also for the first time and of course it was in 1860 when the Indian Penal Code was enacted, there were traces of covering corruption but not so widely because it was not rampant at that point of time. In 1944, it became very rampant and it was only then they thought about bringing an ordinance which was a criminal ordinance of 1944. Then subsequently, the 1947 act was enacted, that is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was enacted but it did not have the teeth to deal with severe acts of corruption. It was only dealing with mild acts of corruption and it was only after that the 1952 Act came, the Amendment Act of 1952 came for preventing corruption even then it was not very very it could not be enforced powerfully. Then they brought an amendment in 1964 that was the latest amendment which had more teeth than the 1952 act. Even after that, this is the model under which the 1988 act came to be enacted because after that there was a wide gap, the independence came in 1947 after which the government took over and then after in 1988 because it was becoming very rampant and they need to have enforceability of this under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the 1988 act was enacted, 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act. The purpose of this act is to combat corruption in different government organizations both in public sector entities in India. This is one of the main things. Subsequently, the 1988 act was also amended in 2018 by the latest Amendment Act of 2018. So this is the brief background to the evolution of Prevention of Corruption Act. The distinctive features of the Prevention of Corruption Act are namely it broadened the definitions application to include public duty and public servant under section 2 of the definition of the act. Previously, it was only a public servant. It was not public duty. Now they have enacted it to bring in both public duty and public servant under the definition of the act. Then next is according to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, it transferred the burden of proof from the prosecution to the person accused of the crime. Second, distinctive feature. Third, the act's requirements are very clear. That means an officer with the least at least the rank of a deputy superintendent of police must conduct the inquiry. He has to be the inquiry officer. Four, the 1988 act broadened the definition of public servant to include central government personnel, union territories, nationalized banks, university grants commission, vice-chancellors, academicians and others. So this is how the web widened under the 1988 act. Then the last and not the least, the act criminalizes corrupt conduct like bribery, misappropriation, acquiring a monetary advantage, having assets disproportionate to the income and so on. These are the five distinctive features under which the Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted. They had this at the back now before enacting that. Then the important definitions under the Prevention of Corruption. Public duty. Section 2b, what is public duty? Public duty is defined as a duty in the execution of which the state, the public or society at large has an interest at large. The term state has a broad meaning as well. In this context, the state means a corporation created by the central provincial or the state act. So it means that the definition of state has widened. It includes corporation, both central provincial and state. Two, a government authority or a body controlled by the government of India, which means a government company has defined under section 617 of the company's act. Then the importance of the term public duty is that those who are paid by the government are doing public tasks or a public duty or who otherwise have public obligations may also prevent corruption among public workers. So the public duty means it covers not only the public tasks, but also public obligations, conduct public obligations to prevent corruption. Then section 2c, 2c of the act defines who is a public servant because these are the two terms which has to be used intermittently and the intervention of corruption. A public servant broadly means an individual employed by the government receiving a government compensation or receiving fees or commissions from the government for the performance of any public obligation. That is one definition of a public servant. Two, an individual who works for or is compensated by the local government or any employees of a firm created or by operating under a central provincial or state act as well as a local body. Then any judge as well as anyone permitted by law to carry any judicial or adjudicating duties. It can be even a member of the tribunal. Then an arbitrator or an individual to whom any issue or subject has been submitted by the court of justice or by a competent public authority. Next, a person who occupies a position that gives him authority to conduct election or a portion of an election or to compile, publish, maintain or update an electoral rule. That means election commission or anybody working in the election commission. Then an individual holding a position that allows or obligates them to carry out public duties. Then an individual who serves the chairman as a member or employee of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or a Union Public Service Commission or any of these commissions. Then vice chancellor of the university or and then an official or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution regardless of how he was founded. If it is a statutory body, all these persons can be construed as public servants. Then the next question is whether a prime minister, a chief minister are construed as public servants. According to clauses 12 of section 21 of the Indian penal code, which is equivalent to clause C of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a minister, a prime minister or a chief minister is a public servant. The definition originates from the Indian penal code. Then it is shifted to or it is now adopted in prevention of corruption. All of you would know the famous case of M. Varanasi versus Union of India, 1979 Supreme Court which determined that a minister is employed by and subject to the authority of the governor and receives compensation for labour or duties performed on behalf of the public and is paid a salary from the public money. A member of the legislative assembly MLA was found not to be a public servant under section 21 of the Indian penal code, but he is covered under section 2 C of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This is the distinction. Next is Office of Profit, one accepting awards or rewards influencing public officials and accepting gifts. Section 7 to 11 of the POC Actors Prevention of Corruption Act defines cases of accepting or receiving gratification influencing public officials or accepting gifts. The act categorizes offenses according to the severity of their effects that is the gravity of the offense. It is crucial because you have to note one thing is that the some of the parts of the under the Corruption Act have been significantly changed in the light of the duties of India vis-a-vis UNCAC that is the provisions of the Provision of Corruption Act as they currently exist are detailed below. One, the act provisions for offending transactions that is there should be a demand for money and there should be an acceptance of money. A mere recovery of money does not prove that there is a demand. I am going to cite several case laws in the course of my lecture where different yardsticks are being used to determine whether a person is can be convicted under the Provision of Corruption Act. Some of the main features are that when a person is found guilty of a corrupt activity the major yardsticks that are used are whether he has demanded money. Two, what is the proof he has demanded money? Three, are there any witnesses to support the contention of the complainant? Four, how was the money recovered from him whether it was from his hands pocket or from any objects like a table drawer or a cupboard? All these are subject to satisfaction depending on the evidence of the crap witnesses which are normally used under the DVAC manual to attract the provenance of the Provision of Corruption. What happens is when a man wants to give a complaint against a public servant for abusing his position or for disregard to his duties he goes to the DVAC that is a vigilance of anti-corruption, direct rate of vigilance. Then he makes a complaint saying that this is what is happening. Then to prove that the department they write letters to any department for the purpose of deputing the crap witnesses. There has to be a letter given by the DVAC to the concerned department to depute two people as a crap witness and a copy of the complaint should also be accompanied along with the letter for requesting deputation. Then the witnesses come, they are given a briefing on how or what is the complaint about. Then there has to be a pre-departmental inquiry, a pre-trap inquiry, sorry pre-trap inquiry based on which the accused is also given an opportunity and then they go for the where they go for the trap. Before doing that inquiry, when you are doing that inquiry the credentials of the accused will have to also got to be taken into consideration. The reputation of the accused, the credentials of the accused, what is the role he is playing, what are his duties, are there any previous complaints against him, all these facts will have to be taken into consideration. Then on the appointed day when they want to trap a person they will have to go, then there will be a decoy, that means a trap witnesses, then the the complaint will approach the concerned accused officer and say that for such and such a duty you are demanded so much of money, we have brought that money, I am ready with that money. Now what happens in most cases is if it is as I say they are thought red-handed, that means the what they do is they they apply phenophthalene solution and so that the fingerprints of the accused are imprinted on the notes or objects whatever they want to take and once that object is being taken by the on the hand of the accused it changes the color, it becomes red. Then they are trapped, the officers or the police officials come and they arrest the concerned person. Then they are taken to the vigilance office where he has been asked to sign a statement and based on that statement they arrest him and produce him before the magistrate who will remand him for judicial custody on the charges of corruption. This is normally practiced at day-to-day. But there are several instances where corruption cases are being foisted for various reasons and these cases are being foisted for maybe there is a rivalry between two groups or there is a caste clash that means the community communal clash which also leads to this or a political differences between two or the affiliations of the people. All these are being now being used under the protocol that is the prevention of corruption. So first thing is before you trap a person there are several regulations under the DVAC the manual gives the procedures under which a trap has to be done or when a person is to be arrested or taken for a study under the protocol the manual has to be followed. But I can tell you that the manual is only directly I mean it is not mandatory. That's what is being argued in several cases that the manual is only directly and it cannot be used as a mandatory provision. But any slip-ups in the procedures will also lead to an acquittal in a trial case. There are several matters where because there are some slip-ups in following the procedures our high court has acquitted several people in several cases. The main thing is a pre-inquiry which is mandatory which is not mandatory but it is important and there are several decisions which say that without following this procedure or a pre-inquiry a pre-trap inquiry it is the accused can be acquitted of the conviction or of the offense. What happens is the in matters of these which is quite technical because since it's a criminal offense the technicalities will have to be given a very strict following. The technicals in a criminal case which is under Article 20 or under 21 which is fixes liberty. The technical procedures will have to be strictly followed and this is what is being done in most of the criminal cases. Now the next question is whether it will apply to a private individual also. Now we are talking about a public servant. Whether it will apply to a private individual? As previously stated under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 applies to public workers. To some extent it also applies to a segment of private individuals and who are those individuals? Though the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 punishes violations committed by public workers there are a few occasions where it applies to individuals also. Section 8 describes the circumstances in which a person seeks an illicit gratification in order to influence a public worker. There are several instances where there are called the touts who act as mediaries between the complainant and the public worker and he is a person who will probably be taking the money on behalf of the public servant or the public worker as a gratification for doing some public jobs. So those individuals are also covered after the Prevention of Corruption Act. One of the important cases which I would like to also to add is where there is without evidence of demand the mere possession and seizure of a cash from a subject from a subject of inquiry does not constitute a violation of Section 7. Section 7 deals with demand of money that is the basis that is the basic provision which deals with the demand for money. In peace, Sakyanarayana Mukti was a state of district inspector of police 2015 Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of correct or illegal means or abusing one's position as a public servant to obtain a valuable item or financial advantage cannot be deemed to have been proven in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification. This is also been appealed latest by the Supreme Court in Jattar Singh case and Neeraj Jattar. Neeraj Jattar is a constitutional bench which set the guidelines under which a person can be convicted or acquitted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Neeraj Jattar, I'll give all the citations. You can all make a note of it. And that is one of the reasons why I will say that it's a very, very, very narrow sphere when you convict somebody under the Prevention of Corruption Act because all the procedures will have to be followed thoroughly. Any lapse in one or two of the procedures definitely will lead to the acquittal of the accused person. Then talking about the individuals, I've also made the people who act as doubts or people who are act as intermediaries between the public officer and the company. They can also be convicted or can be set as an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Now, coming to Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it applies to anyone who has a connection to a public worker, a connection to a public worker who are engaging in corrupt actions. Given our country's VIP mentality, this is a critical provision. There are a lot of people who are relatives, acquaintances or friends of public workers who brag about their relationship with all these VIPs. Furthermore, this regulation inhibits public officials from obtaining illicit advantages by concealing their identities behind the identity of another individual. It is only because of this, private individuals are also being brought under the loop of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Next is whether it is illegal to abate some offenses. What does it mean? If a public employee who has been charged with an offense under Section 8 or 9 aids and abets the actions of those other people, the act of aiding itself is a criminal under the Act. It's a criminal offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Whether the crime was done as a result of the abetment, if it is yes, then it also includes them under the Network of Prevention of Corruption Act. Now, Section 7 makes it a crime for a public officer to accept a reward other than lawful pay in exchange for performing an official act. So, this is very clear that under the 1988 Act, any receipt of any illegal gratification or any valuable item in exchange for discharging your public duty and amounts to a crime or an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then the next question is, once a complaint has been received, the next question is, who are the people who can investigate these offenses? Who are the people who can go into these offenses? An investigation of the offense is critical in a criminal justice system. Generally, the police conduct the investigation. It is their primary obligation to gather evidence and try to identify the true perpetrators of the crime. The police have been granted extensive powers for this reason. However, the police can abuse their broad powers at times because this is a question of administration and governance of public workers. These powers should be thoroughly reviewed. Not all the police officers who are permitted to conduct investigations for these reasons. Only police personnel of a certain rank are permitted to investigate the matter. Now, Section 17 of the Act deals with who are the people who can investigate. Now, in the case of a Delhi Special Police Establishment, an officer with a rank of an Inspector of Police or higher, that is CBI, can do that. In metropolitan locations like Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, an official with a rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police or above, in elsewhere, an officer with a rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher is authorized. These are the people who can conduct the investigation. No approved official may conduct investigations or makers until an order from the Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class is obtained. So the procedure is these are the officers who can conduct an investigation and they cannot be remanded unless an order is obtained from the Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate. But the most as indicated previously, the arrest can be done on the accused without the warrant. No arrest, that is as previously mentioned. He may arrest the accused without the warrant from a Metropolitan or a Magistrate of the First Class. It can be done if it is a case of emergency. In this approach, we can see that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, not all officers are permitted to investigate accusations of corruption. Only the designated police personnel can do that. Now, what are the restrictions of investigations in certain cases? What are the restrictions? There are certain restrictions also. Section 17A of the Amendment Act of 2018 kindly make a note, stipulates that no one may investigate an alleged offense if it involves a recommendation or a decision made by a public worker in the course of his official responsibilities. If such an inquiry is to be performed, the approvals are required. Kindly make a note of that. This comes after the Amendment Act that is 2018, Amendment Act, Section 17A. However, if an arrest is conducted on the scene and the offender admits to committing an offense, no such clearance is necessary when there is an admission. Then, the authority to examine the bankers' books, Section 18 of the Act, stipulates that if the investigation officer believes that the bankers' records need to be examined for the purposes of inquiry, the officer may examine them. This power of inspection extends beyond the offender's bank account and includes the authority to search bank accounts of anybody, that is, it comes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, whom the officer suspects upholding money on behalf of the criminal. Then, what are the functions of the brave provider and presumption obtained? This is very important and this has been very clearly enumerated in the case of M. Narasingarov, who was a state of honor for the 2001 Supreme Court, where it says that this is under Section 20 of the Procar. There is a presumption that any expensive item or pleasure discovered in the hands of a person under investigation was obtained for reasons described in Section 7 of the Act. Suppose a man whose income is 100 rupees and wears a watch of 1000 rupees, there is a presumption that he can be a corrupt person or he might have received a bribe or he might have received this item or valuable as a bribe for discharging a public duty. But this is a reputable presumption, meaning that the individual under investigation would have to prove that the valued item or gratification was not obtained in connection with the Act's violation. According a person under investigation who performed guilty if no offense, no evidence was presented to refute the assumption and this is what Narasingarov's case, the Supreme Court held and laid the guidance. Now coming to the next provisions of the Procar, Section 24 grants immunity to the brave giver and states that the brave giver's confession will not expose him to prosecution. The immunity granted to the brave providers under this rule or this section has been seen as a fundamental weakness as well as a contradictory with international laws. Now if you take what is the offenses under the Act is taking gratification other than legal remuneration. Now the punishment is those found guilty shall face imprisonment for six months extended up to 10 years and a fine shall also be levied. Then taking gratification to influence a public servant that is under Section 8 which applies to individuals. Imprisonment for not less than three years which is expandable to seven years a fine also shall be levied. Then under Section 9 that is to wield a personal influence punishment up till five years that is the maximum is five years but not less than six months with a fine. Then a criminal misconduct by the public servant section 13 which is the most important provision. Imprisonment for not less than one year but extendable to seven years these are these are the most important provisions and the punishment that can be levied under these provisions. Then the next is we have to come to the procedure used to prosecute to investigate and prosecute the corrupt public officials. The Central Vigilance Commission of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the State Anti-Corruption Bureau are the three primary bodies involved in enquiring investigation and prosecuting corruptive action matters. The Directorate of Enforcement and the Financial Intelligence Unit both of which all under the Ministry of Finance look into and prosecute cases involving money laundering by public employees. So these are the wings or the enforcing agencies who are given the powers to investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code by 1816, the CBI and the state ACB agencies anti-corruption bureaus investigate charges of corruption. The CBI investigates cases inside the federal government and union territories while the ACBs investigate crimes within the states that is a DVAC. Cases can be referred to CBI also by the states. Then the third is the CBC Central Vigilance Commission. It is a statutory agency that oversees corruption investigations in the government agencies. It is in charge of the CBI. The CBC has the authority to recommend matters to Central Vigilance Officer in each department or to the CBI. The CBC that is the Central Vigilance Commission or the CUN Central Vigilance Officer advises disciplinary action against the public worker. But the decision to take an action against a civil servant remains with the departmental authorities. Next, an investigative agency may commence a prosecution only with the prior approval of the national or the state government. Prosecutors chosen by the government handle the prosecution process in the courts. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, all matters are heard by the special judges chosen by the national or state governments. What happens is under section 197 before a person is when there is a complaint. The complaint is being investigated by the sanctioning authority under section 197 of the CRPC. The sanctioning authority is given all the reports to show whether a sanction should be granted to proceed against the accused officer or not. What happens is when the sanctioning authority, that is the authority in each department, an authority is being deputed as it or has been given the powers to grant sanctions under 197 CRPC. Without granting sanction, we cannot proceed further in the matter. And only when he gives the sanction, he can be prosecuted. If the sanctioning authority feels that there is no case or if there is a misapplication of mind by the sanctioning authority, meaning that he has not gone through all the records before giving the prosecution, before giving the sanction for prosecution. In all these cases, the courts have heard either that the sanction was not given to, the sanction was given by a person who was not eligible to give the sanction. There has been a misapplication of mind by the sanctioning authority before granting the sanction. So these are the yardsticks that the courts use to find out whether the sanction granted for prosecution the accused officer is valid or not. Thirdly, the amendments now the next is, these are the basis on which a person can be proceeded with under the prevention of corruption. First is section 7, then section 8, section 9, section 30, then section 20. These are all the charging provisions which give the power to the concerned authorities to proceed against an accused I've also told, I've also said about the procedure and the procedure to investigate and to prosecute the corrupt officials who are the people agencies, who are the agencies, these are the agencies whom I just enumerated in my talk. Now, we are now coming to the amendments to the act. The Prohibition of Corruption Act, 1988 was recently updated because no further improvements were made to the act resulting because of its limited success, meaning that nothing much was being done or could be done under the act because it had its own limitations. Now, what the government felt was that it should be made a little more stringent and a little more easy to enforce. So they brought in the 2018 amendment and this is what is now being followed. The major revisions targeted at tightening up the act's current provisions and broadening the scope of the offenses. Now, what are the significant changes which are being brought in the amendment act are the word prescribed has been adopted to refer to rules that the central government may create under the act. As a result, we predict the following rules, rules requiring organizations and business to develop internal policies and procedures to prevent their personnel from giving undue benefit to public officials. See, what happens in the corporate world, a lot of policies are being made by them and these are being implemented by the government officials through their own network and influences to curb that so that the officials don't influence the government, that's the officials of the company of even private limited companies or private bodies, not to influence the public officials. Certain internal policies will have to be developed. So it is only with that in mind, the amendments came. One of the amendments is prescribed. The next is undue advantage in section 20. After this amendment is defined, this is defined as any reward other than legal payment. Similarly, the term gratification has been defined to embrace all types of monetary gratification other than economic gratification. For example, you're purchasing a ticket to a government official and his family to travel abroad or him to do some favors for you, it is an undue advantage. This is what they're trying to bring in under the net because not everybody takes money in cash. They expect favors to be done to you and this is what is called an undue advantage. The third is the legal remuneration. The phrase legal remuneration under the amendment act has been defined to cover all the day that a public worker is authorized by relevant body to receive. That is, she gets as a salary or an increment in the course of his employment. This is one of the most important things. That is why the term legal remuneration has been expanded in the amendment act. Next is under section 44, the courts no longer have to finish trials for activated offenses within two years. Previously, it was within two years. Now, they don't have to do that. Failing which the judges must record the necessity for a time extension. A trial can now be prolonged for six months at a time up to a maximum of four years. This is one of the amendments which is brought under the amendment act. The next is the amendment of section eight. Section eight lays down the consequences for anybody who aids in all payment of a bribe or attempts to engage in corruption alongside a public official. The amendment act exempts actions taken under duress as long as the person who was forced to take them files are complained with the police or an investigative agency within seven days after paying the bribe. This is another important amendment which is brought. It should be done within seven days. Thirdly, for business organizations under section nine, it now clearly addresses business organization and the people connected with them. The phrase persons affiliated with the commercial organization is a broad enough to cover workers and suppliers. While the word commercial organization is defined to include all types of corporate organizations, this is a very expansive definition to bring almost everybody under the net of the token. Then the penalty provisions for the penalty section under this act provides that where the commercial organization's directors, officials in default or a person with the power over the organization has consented to the corrupt act breaking the act's requirements. Section 10 now sets specific periods for imprisonment and a fine. This is another important provision under the new act. Now, when the amendments are made to sections nine and 10, it may be helpful to keep in mind that the amended act appears to punish both commercial organizations for violating the act by leaving a fine and the officers in charge of such commercial organizations under section 10 by subjecting them to a criminal liability. This is very important for a provisional or provisions related to public servants who are charged of corruption. It appears that the amendment act has reduced the circumstances in which the public employees may be charged with suspected criminal behavior. Only the misappropriation of property and unjust enrichment are included as a reason for misconduct in the modified section 13 of the program. In the past, normally section 13 included broad propensities to engage in corrupt behavior or seeks bribes as a grounds for criminal runway. Now they have made it very, very clear, very pointed. The amendment act seems to make it more challenging to bring charges against the government personnel. According to the charge, according to the change made under section 19 to prosecute a public employee under section 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the act, a sanction must be acquired from a body that has the power to fire them. Second, an authorization request must be made by the investing agency such as the police officer Orrell's. Orrell's other complaints must be satisfied before the court will declare an offense to have acquired. These are the two very important things as I said that there should be a letter, an authorization request to the concerned departments to dequeue trap witnesses for engaging in the trap activity. Now the judicial pronouncements Judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and other versus the state of Punjab reported in 2006 Supreme Court that if a public servant received a compensation for persuading another public servant to perform or refrain from performing an official act, he would be subjected to the provisions of section 8 and 9 of the prevention of corruption. It also means if I prevent another official, one official preventing another official from discharging his duties, it is also an offense under the program. Case law. Then another case which also is very important under section 7131D has been the focus of extensive litigation because most of the corruption cases are being charged only under these two provisions that is section 7 and section 131D of the prevention of corruption. The Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Parbat Sonavane was a state of Vijara 2002 held that to be found guilty under section 131D, there must be a proof that the subject of the investigation that is the person under investigation obtained something valuable or financially advantages for himself or another person through dishonest or illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant or by obtaining something valuable or financially advantages for another person without any consideration of public interest. Then the Delhi High Court in Dupinder Singhsika versus CBI found that an employee of an insurance company established by an act of parliament was inherently a public servant and that no evidence was necessary in this regard. The Supreme Court wide definitions, the Supreme Court's wide definitions may result in unpredictability and confusion in law. Then another important case law will be Vasanth Rao Rukhe versus state of MP 2017 that a public official accused of criminal misconduct cannot be expected to explain the absence of evidence to support the claim that he had property or money that was out of proportion to his known sources of income. So these are some of the older cases and I would like to also to enlighten you on the latest case laws of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Courts. Please excuse me. Some of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court are one is N Vijay Kumar was a state of Tamil Nadu reported in of the year arising out of SLP numbers, criminal numbers 42, 4729 and 4730 of 2020. Now in this case of Vijay Kumar, it was clearly held that the case of the complainant, it is well settled, a mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of prosecution against the accused and references were made in the case of CM Girish Babu was a CBI Pochin High Court reported in 2009, 3 SCC 779 and the case of Vijay Raj was a state of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014, 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments, while considering sections 7, 13, 1, D1 and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency is not sufficient to constitute such an offense. In the said judgments, it is also held that even the presumption under section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. So, it is very evident from this case that a mere recovery of money will not lead to the presumption that there was a demand. In the case of Vijay Kumar, the case of the prosecution did not support, the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution insofar as a demand by the accused is concerned. Why? The question arises, why? The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant to prove that it same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. The witnesses also did not support the case of the complainant that they were present when the money was handed over to them. Under these reasons or under these circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the accused and acquitted him of charges of corruption. This was a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Honourable Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Shah and was published in February 2001. The next case is a very important case by a constitutional bench of our Honourable High Court recorded in 2023 for SCC page 731 that is Neeraj Datta versus the state government of NCT of Delhi. The major topics are the major provisions which were dealt with in this case is section 7, 13, 1, D1 and 2 where it said the prosecution has to first prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of a oral evidence or documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence in the absence of a direct, oral and documentary evidence. So, in the instant case what happened was the complainant died. So, the question arose whether the prosecution can be continued on the death of the complainant. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence or in the absence of the complainant, the prosecution can continue based on circumstantial evidence. It held that section 20 does not apply to section 13, 1, D1 and 2. This is very, very important. Result at least the absence of evidence of complainants that is direct, primary or oral or documentary evidence. It is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability or guilt of a public servant under section 7 and 13, 1, D, red width, 13, 2. The strong other evidence that is circumstantial evidence and hence they said the prosecution can continue. So, this is one of the landmark judgments which was reported in 2024 ACC page 731 before a constitution bench of five judges. Then the second, the other important judgments are following Neeraj Dutta, the Supreme Court in Jaktar Singh was the state of Punjab reported when it was judgment of the year 2023, March 23 of this year, 2023, where it said that where it held that in the case on hand, that is the facts of this case, Jaktit Singh complainant as well as Champur Singh shadow witness have turned hostile. So, sometimes what happens is if the witness has turned hostile, then the prosecution craze crumbles and this is what happens several most of the cases. The trial court had specifically held that there is no evidence produced on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification. It is not the case in which the demand was reiterated when the money was allegedly paid to him. Gujinder Singh, that is the witness, PWA is only a witness who stated that he had recovered the money from the upland. The high court had passed his judgment on the assumption that there was a demand. However, in appeal in Supreme Court, based on Neeraj Dutta's case, the appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of all charges of conviction. Then the next one is another Supreme Court judgment of Lordship Justice B. Rama Subramanyam in A. Srinivasulu was a state by the inspector of police. The criminal appeal number 2417 of 2010 and it's a very lengthy judgment, turning to nearly 180 pages and the judgment was delivered on 15th of June, 2023, a very latest judgment of June, 2023. In that case, it is a common judgment of the Madurai, it arose from the Madurai bench of the Madrasai Court, confirming the conviction of the appellants. Herein for various offenses under the Penal Court and Prevention of Corruption Act, then the some of the ingredients or the highlights of this judgment are as follows. It dealt with section 197, the sanction of prosecution, where his Lordship held him, following state of Orissa in the state of Orissa to Umar Raghavendra Singh versus Ganesh Chandraju, a two-member bench of this court explained that the protection at section 197, this is a very important judgment, covering all the gamuts of the prevention of corruption, that under section 197, there are certain limits and that it is available only when alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of an official duty and it is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. The court also explained that if in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of protection of the act. The above position in state of Orissa was followed incidentally by the very same author in K. Kalimutu was a state DSP and Rakesh Kumar Mishra was a state of Bihar. So, the distinction which is largely gross is, suppose I want to do an act which is maybe to excel myself, I do an act which has a reasonable connection between the act I am doing and the performance of an official duty, then I am protected. That means there should not be any sanction for prosecution that I have exceeded my duty. There is a clear distinction which is not should gross that when there is a nexus between the duty and the performance of that duty, even if it is done in a little excess, then no sanction for prosecution should be granted for prosecuting him saying that there is an implied assumption of a corruption. This was followed by his lordship in K. Kalimutu was a state DSP and Rakesh Kumar Mishra was a state of Bihar. Then in another case which is lordship refers is the Devendra Singh was a state of Punjab through CBI that is reported in 2016, 12 ACC 87. The other judgments is K. Kalimutu was a state of DSP, is reported in 2004, 2005, four ACC 512. In this, in the case of Devendra Singh was the state of Punjab through CBI, this court took note of almost all the decisions on the point and summarized the principles emerging there where it says the principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarized here. The protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, the authority cannot be camouflaged to commit a crime, meaning once the act omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant, in discharging his duty it must be given a liberal and a white construction so far as it is an official nature. That is if a person is doing a duty which is pertaining to his official nature, then you cannot construe that this is an act of corruption. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities to that extent. And section 197 CRPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. So these are some of the highlights of this decision of this logic, this is Ramasubramaniam. Secondly, a very another important highlight of this decision is he deals with section 73 of the evidence that there is of the handwriting expert which is also extracted in this judgment where he says that the examination of a handwriting witness should be done in the rarest of the rare cases. It should not be embarked mechanically without any reason. There is lot supers very clearly was comparing certain letters which are admitted and certain letters which are disputed and he said that section 73 of the evidence act should be used sparingly and this is one of the highlights of the decision. The next decision will be another Supreme Court judgment reported in A Srinivasuru versus the state of this is the same one. The other is the largest justice Jai Chandran's decision reported in 2006, I mean sorry in the 26, 2023 in criminal appeal number 700 of 2016. In this judgment there are two important aspects which his lordship has highlighted. One, whether the witness's evidence are reliable or not. The evidence of the witnesses whether it is reliable or not can be judged on two parameters. One, what is this background? Two, whether it is impeachable evidence. If those parameters are not able to be, if the witness is not able to come up with those two parameters or the parameters which has been set in this judgment has not been in part of the satisfaction then the accused will have to be acquitted. In this judgment there are two highlights and it's available on the net. The trial court framed charges under section 7, 13-2, read with 13, one D of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and tried the accused. Then they examined witnesses and they also produced certain documents. One of the reasons is the phenomenon. Here the counsel for the appellate that is the accused had submitted, the tainted currency was forcibly inserted in the shirt pocket of the accused. That is the reason why the sodium carbonate solution did not change its color when the accused dipped his right hand and left hand fingers. The recovery of the mother's peace haven't as well as the witnesses P2 the defective complainant and P3 shadow witness and P15 trapping officer admit that the hand wash of the accused remained colorless. However the report chemical analysis marked as exhibit P28 indicate that the solution sent for analysis where the turbid liquid with pink tint. The analysis report also detected both phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Therefore it is clear that the trap proceedings Alishua have been conducted on the said day and time is fake and false. So this is one of the other parameters which was taken by his lordship to find out whether there was a genuine corruption case or was it a fake or a fabricated case. So the evidence makes a lot of difference in all these cases. Then the deposition or the evidence of the trap witness. Suppose there is a difference in the timings that is a trap witness says that the trap took place at 2pm but actually the trap had taken place much earlier or he was arrested much earlier. That means the trap witness either will not have been there at the time of the trap or he has been tutored to give these statements. So in either of these cases the evidence of the trap witness cannot be relied upon or it is it is cannot be relied upon. So hence in these sorts of cases the evidence of the witnesses will make a play a major role in either convicting or acquitting the accused. Similarly in another case, similarly in another case of the Supreme Court in the latest judgment of Justice Jay Chandra because he has been handling the present portfolio in Chennai and a lot of decisions has been coming out under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another important decision of this Lordship was pronounced on 5723 where his Lordship had a reasonable doubt regarding the taking of the brain. Here his Lordship said that the accused that is the timings of the accused, the statements of the trap witnesses they differ a lot, they differ a lot, the timings make a lot of difference. For example in this case which is reported which I just said it is criminal appeal number 803 of 2015 which was pronounced on 5723 it was held that neither the document nor the statements made by the trap witness gives credibility for the witnesses. The trap witness in this case the trap playing officer admits in the facts of this case admits that the file connected to the application of the defective complainant was not with the accused on the day of the trap and it was collected from the toilet office subsequently. When there is no file pending with the accused and the request of the complainant already has been rejected the motive of the complainant is to fix the accused could easily be seen for example in another case an application for an electricity connection was given for a vacant land. Now under the rules electricity rules no connection can be given for a vacant land either it should be there should be a building or only a temporary connection can be given. Now this application was filed by a person who is neither the owner of the land and it is only a power of attorney of a builder and not the owner whether such a person can make an application at all was a question that arose before his lawsuit. Now the lawsuit said that one he has no authority to file an application for electricity connection which is barred under another law. Two is that application has not even been filed it has not even been registered the registration fees of that application was not even a record that was produced during the time of the trap at the time of the trap when there are no records to show that a consideration was received for a particular object then it means that the trap itself is a fabricated one that is what was held by the by his lordship and in that case also the accused was acquitted. The next heading which was done by his lordship this is Jayatandran he's on the cushion of whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not what convicting or accusing accused witnesses. Now a preliminary inquiry is necessary the prosecution in this case has failed to ascertain the veracity of the complaint by conducting a preliminary inquiry. Next they have not proved the acceptance of illegal gratification beyond doubt. Near recovery of tainted money will not give a presumption that the amount money was obtained as an illegal gratification the defense through DW1 had through the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses had by preponderance of probability had established that there is a motive for this complaint which is apparently false therefore the judgment of the trial court which has failed to take note of these facts is liable to be reversed and this criminal appeal was reversed and criminal appeal was allowed sorry and the accused was acquitted of the charges. The next which is very important is also by the supreme court in by lordship justice B. R. Gawai was also in a recent judgment has held that in Saundar Raj that is that is in Saundar Rajan was the state by the inspector of police report I mean it was a criminal appeal of 1592 of 22. It was the judgment was delivered on 17th of April 2023 where his lordship that is Justice Okha and Justice Rajesh Bindal have very clearly said we find in this case the charge has been framed very casually the trial courts ought to have been very meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges in a given case any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and or a long delay in trial due to an order of remark which can be passed under section 2 of section 464 CRPC apart from the duty of the trial court even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant and if a proper charge is not framed it is his duty to apply to the court to frame an appropriate charge the appeal is allowed the impure judgments are washed and set aside an appellant is acquitted of the offenses alleged against him and the bail bonds are cancelled. In this case the framing of charges is also plays a very important role the in this instant case the special court omitted to frame a specific charge on demand allegedly made by the appellant on 6th and 13th August 2004 and the acceptance thereof on 13th August 2004 when there is a lapse on the part of the trial court to frame specific charges the the accused is acquitted of all charges because technical technicalities play a very important role in criminal cases so this is one of one other case where framing of charges which has not been framed properly has led to the acquittal of the accused in that other one is jeptasing I've already said that is where the near recovery does not paint a man with corruption and the other one is Aditya Kumar versus state of Rajasthan that is there is in this case there is no corroboration of supporting witnesses this is a criminal appeal 61 of 23 and the order is dated 9th January 23 by Larchick this is Gawai and Vikram Nath in the instant case his Larchick said that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case he further submits that the very evidence of so and so it will be apparent that the credentials of the complainant itself is doubtful it is further submitted that independent witnesses that is PW2 who said to have accompanied the complaint also does not support the prosecution case and in which case there is no case for unwitting the accused officer and the appeals were allowed and based on the benefit of doubt the accused was acquitted and the bail bonds were cancelled so these are some of the highlights of the prevention of corruption act in a nutshell with the latest case laws which have been rendered by the High Court and the Supreme Court now coming to the concluding part of this topic the evil of corruption has been endangering the evolution of humanity and civilization and regardless of this period evil has persisted due to hungry character of the humans humans are drawn to this evil because of the material benefits they gain from engaging in immoral acts this act may be useful in developing an efficient system to combat the evil of corruption as a result the prevention of corruption act is an important statute to combat corruption however an act alone will not will will always lose this battle against the corruption it is also the performance of our lawmakers that will take us or give us an advantage in controlling this menace so this is that in a nutshell the prevention of corruption act with these laws so any any questions please let me you have taken these sessions so I can put it in the chat box also they have put it kindly give illustrations of section 7c of prevention of corruption act 7c will be 7c is a legal remuneration legal remuneration the words legal remuneration are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand but include all remuneration which is permitted by the government or the organization which he serves to accept that is what is legally due to him under the rules what is his legally eligible to recover under the rules are all legal remuneration apart from the salary the legal remuneration does not restrict only to the salary but all other allowances which is eligible or all other expenses which is eligible under the rules and regulations of the corporate body are the government rules so this is what is legal remuneration in case anybody is shown in the video string accepting cash does it make a case under the prevention of corruption act receipt of cash yes accepting the cash in a video you can accept cash provided you give a receipt you know in a video string you know video recording is also there in the DVAC manner video and tape recording also but it will give a presumption under section 20 that the cash which has been accepted is for an illegal gratification because most of the bodies have rules to accept cash legally for example I will in an instant case I will tell you see the consumers of electricity come to the office now there is a cash collection center which is not within the premises of this office it has to be a kilometer away from the electricity office so what people will do is they give the money to the assistant engineer it's based on the trust this is what happened in a case which I was having now in his pocket there were there was 40000 rupees which was given by various consumers and of course there was no video taping of that because it is an official payment which they had given for which receipts were given at a later point of time but for an illegal gratification normally there is no huge amounts exchange it is in the vicinity of maybe 5000 or 6000 rupees if there is a trap case because nobody will give a person 30 or 40000 rupees or a trap case unless the situation demands in most of the trap cases in most of the trap cases the amounts given are very small or very negligible compared to the volume now if a person is giving gratification and that has been videographed it leads to the presumption that it is an illegal gratification. Have I answered your question Vikas ji or My name is my professor Srinivas this will be the last question we have taken Can an employee arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act be terminated from employment? Unless he is proved guilty suppose he is acquitted let us take a case which is acquitted in a corruption case what they do is they conduct a parallel departmental inquiry under the misconduct rules that is the rules of employment treated as a misconduct provided the rules are there for him to be charged for misconduct now in those cases the let us take a case where he has been acquitted and let us take a case where he has been held to be guilty under the misconduct now the question is left to open which of these will be followed for the purposes of pension and for the purposes of other benefits the question arose many till today I have not seen any case law on this but normally in a case where he is committed he is terminated without a departmental inquiry That will be terminated because Article 311 subclass 2 says Yes, yes that you dispense with inquiry if you have been convicted and that is the case of a moral substitute. Exactly, exactly. And running of parallel inquiry Mr. Srinivas and other audience can read the judgment of Captain M. Paul Anthony. Yes, Paul Anthony, Paul Anthony space, yes. And also if you take GM tank space versus the state of Gujarat I think 2006. Hello, hello. Spunath Bench held that various for holding another inquiry on the same of the cases which has been followed by our high courts also following Paul Anthony space and also the other gold mine space Sagi Ramad where they say suppose there is a delay in conducting the inquiry then it doesn't serve any purpose at this distance of time. Suppose the trial takes 10 years and after that you are holding another inquiry and in the meantime years it is retired or whatever it is or it has been allowed to retire then in which case they say that it is a meaningless exercise. GM tanks case is actually on the point 2006, 5 SCC 488, this is Lakshmanan and somebody else. That is Chandrachute statement. But that also it's only in the case where the departmental inquiry the rules are there and they say they can conduct an inquiry also. But I don't know whether they have referred to GM tanks case in that case. I think it was 2006 where then they said that the judicial evidence will take over precedence over the departmental proceedings because here it is same offense and same charges. They are after some more value. So thank you Mr. Thank you all of you for sitting with us and going through this. Thank you so much to all of you, the viewers and Mr. Vikasji for organizing this. We will have a session on conservation of forests in India, legislation and judgments that is by Professor Tr Subramanya, the Dean of the CMR University, so do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6 PM.