Section 7-Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.—
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for
showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local
authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less
than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 13- Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—
(2)-Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall be not less than [four years] but which may extend to [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 13(1)- A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing
or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
Recent case law:-
In S Sundara Kumar v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the Court held that as the appellant, a senior citizen aged 69 years had been dismissed from service and served a year and one month in rigorous imprisonment, in a sentence for 2 years imposed, his sentence may be reduced to one year and one month and directed that he be released.
[Key Words: Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), Leniency] [Coram: Ashok Bhushan, J., R Subhash Reddy, J., MR Shah, J.]
Leniency : INDIA
Since the enforcement of the substantive provisions of the Competition Act 2002, there have been a total of 10 decisions passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) involving leniency applications. Through its decisional practice as well as amendments to the relevant regulations, the CCI has sought to promote the Indian leniency regime as a key feature of its enforcement agenda. In 2018, the chairperson of the CCI at the time stated that the leniency regime had been a great success in facilitating enforcement actions against cartels. This chapter seeks to provide a description of the broad features of the Indian leniency regime and shed light on emerging trends.
From time to time in many Supreme Court judgments we have seen that the concept of leniency does not function under the corruption allegations or we say The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. SC has made it clear that it doesn’t matter what the amount of corruption is. Because if we allow a reduction in the penalty for the crime of corruption, we indirectly end up making a criteria for punishment of corruption. Example- A, took a bribe of 500000.
And , B took Bribe of 50 rupees.
Punishment for taking bribes , let’s say is for 7 years. So punishment was givenB for 1 year. And 7 years for A just because he took less money.
So, Is it right to decrease the penalty in case of less bribes? well this can be a topic of discussion.
Thank you for reading.