prevention of corruption act
lv
(Querist) 22 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
Recently cabinet has approved certain changes to prevention of corruption act and these changes are likely to be approved by parliament soon.
One of the change proposed is deletion of certain provisions to protect public servants from erroneous prosecution by amending the definition of Criminal Misconduct.
Once these changes are approved in section 13 (1) d, how would it impact existing trials under these sections ;
1. Would accused persons get benefit of these changes and prosecution dropped against them?
2. Or would the trial continue under the old provisions which were in place at the time of.commissioning of alleged offence?
Would appreciate views of the honourable members.
lv
(Querist) 22 May 2015
This is not academic please. My relative is facing such a situation. Please advise.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2015
The term "SUCH situation" has no relevance, when you have not described the real problem or situation in your query? Your query is purely an academic query.
If your relative is facing any situation under the PC Act, why not discuss the situation with real background and the case history?
lv
(Querist) 22 May 2015
Ok fair enough.
I will describe the situation as below;
My cousin was bank employee who had recommended sanction of facilities to certain companies which later failed to pay up
Based on an anonymous complaint, the matter was taken up for investigation and he was chargesheeted for certain violations of internal norms.
While there is no allegations of bribery, the section of Criminal Misconduct is sought to be applied to him.
The matter is at the stage of charges. However charges are yet to be framed.
Therefore, he would like to know whether any favourable change in law will benefit him.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2015
You are still short of proper description. So far as the issue of criminal misconduct is concerned, you have not stated, who proposes to apply the criminal misconduct. Moreover, you have not stated, whether the report was lodged the police/CBI and for what crime your friend is supposed to have made in recommending sanction of which type of facilities to certain companies.
Nature of crime is necessary to be discussed, if PC Act is invoked. So, irrespective of whether changes are favourable or not, nothing can be said without description of the nature & extent of crime.
lv
(Querist) 22 May 2015
Well the allegation is that certain facts about the company and its performance and dealings with bank were intentionally suppressed. Also some internal norms and guidelines were overlooked. The loan was however duly sanctioned by the board of the bank and there was no forgery or fabrication involved.
Hope this clarifies.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2015
Your reply is still not up to the mark. Please re-read my query and reply accordingly.
You must have the full facts, if your query is not an academic query. If you don't have the facts with you but the problem is real, you may ask your cousin to give full facts behind the story, otherwise no use of stretching the thread unnecessarily, except to waste yours and experts' time.
lv
(Querist) 22 May 2015
I think I have broadly answered all the queries. It's a Cbi matter taken up on its own volition. Bank is not a complainant.
The evidences are pretty weak and it's more of civil nature. The allegations deal with internal policy violations.
Unfortunately my cousin doesn't have anything more to share.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2015
CBI cannot enter in to the fray unless some complaint about corruption is lodged with them.
If you believe the evidence is petty weak, why you are so worried.
In fact, had your been some real problem, you would not have shown reluctance in sharing the vital facts of the case, which are missing in your description.
However, if you still feel that yours is not an academic query, but a real story, you may better discuss the problem with the lawyer, as would have been engaged by your cousin.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 May 2015
First of all you need to be absolutely clear that revised rules do not apply retrospectively.
Then you need to be clear that evidence of bribery is not needed in case of misuse of official position u/s 13(1)(d).
You are also giving importance to irrelevant issue that the case started from anonymous complaint. Nothing wrong. Being police organization they have powers to move ahead even without a complaint (in non-bribery cases. Every policeman has a power to hide identity of informer and no court can compel him to disclose informer's identity.
You have stated that the evidence is weak if that being the case then you should not be worried.
You have stated that the evidence of civil nature. You have not been able to convey what you mean by this expression. Evidence Act doe s not at all give any definitions like civil evidence or criminal evidence. For getting considered views on this aspect better describe what the evidence is.
Guest
(Expert) 22 May 2015
Mr. Sudhir,
Apparently, when the querist has no replies about the background, the query can simply be an academic query and the querist would have wanted to solve his schhol exercise through experts at this site.
He has enrolled just today.
Naturally, when case has not yet started, being only at the proposal stage, there cannot be any relevance of his two questions in advance, as follows, which a layman cannot be expected to put:
"1. Would accused persons get benefit of these changes and prosecution dropped against them?"
"2. Or would the trial continue under the old provisions which were in place at the time of.commissioning of alleged offence?"
Secondly, if his cousin is already trapped, why he has not asked such questions from his cousin's hired lawyer?
Furthermore, no layman knows about section 13(1)(d), what to say of the proposed modification in the pipeline, except a law student that too through his school exercise put by his teacher.
lv
(Querist) 22 May 2015
I am not sure why you feel I am a law student trying to solve an assignment.
Anyways my apologies for wasting your time. Will tell my cousin that there is no such thing as free advice from lawyers.
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2015
Nature of your questions speak for themselves, when you do not also have vital facts and background of the case.
However, if your cousin is really in trouble, ask him to send complete case history to me at our email ID: dcgroup1962@gmail.com
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 23 May 2015
how can you say that there is no free advise
from where you got this advise:-
"First of all you need to be absolutely clear that revised rules do not apply retrospectively.
Then you need to be clear that evidence of bribery is not needed in case of misuse of official position u/s 13(1)(d).
You are also giving importance to irrelevant issue that the case started from anonymous complaint. Nothing wrong. Being police organization they have powers to move ahead even without a complaint (in non-bribery cases. Every policeman has a power to hide identity of informer and no court can compel him to disclose informer's identity.
You have stated that the evidence is weak if that being the case then you should not be worried.
You have stated that the evidence of civil nature. You have not been able to convey what you mean by this expression. Evidence Act doe s not at all give any definitions like civil evidence or criminal evidence. For getting considered views on this aspect better describe what the evidence is."
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 23 May 2015
you said
"Recently cabinet has approved certain changes to prevention of corruption act"
You are silent whether this information been made public?
You are silent whether has any bill introduced in parliament
If not then take it that cabinet papers are not even given in RTI and are Secret you may be liable criminally if you got this information underhand.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 23 May 2015
you said
"these changes are likely to be approved by parliament soon. "
It is the prerogative of the parliament whether to pass a bill or not.
by predicting that the parliament will pass such bill if/when introduced, you are breaching privilege of the house.
lv
(Querist) 23 May 2015
Thank you for your advice Mr. Kumar.
The information is publicly available.
The draft bill approved by cabinet is also in public domain. Whether or not parliament approves, is its prerogative.
A
My sincere request to experts is that I am withdrawing this query and please do not give any further suggestions.
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2015
What about my proposal? If your cousin is really in trouble, would he like to send complete case history to me through email for further advice? If not, that itself would prove that your cousin does not have any problem, but you wanted solution only for your academic exercise.
lv
(Querist) 23 May 2015
Dear Mr. Dhingra, I value your contribution to the general public. I have offered your services to my cousin.
He will take a call depending on how comfortable he is in sharing further details.
On a lighter note, default by him in contacting you should not be held against me and the ulterior motive assigned to me. Trust me I have none.
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2015
Good defence for not admitting mistake, if any!
However, my belief is that your cousin would never take trouble to send me case history of his problem feeling no need for any guidance on seemingly a fake issue.
