Important provisions of Criminal minor Acts(Part 1)

 

1) Important provisions of NDPS Act 1985.

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/09/important-provision-of-ndps-act-1985.html

2) Important provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/04/important-provisions-of-protection-of.html

3) Important provisions of National Investigation Agency Act 2008 as amended in the year 2019.

https://www.lawweb.in/2020/07/short-notes-on-important-provisions-of.html

Print Page

Supreme Court: Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act Not Retrospective; Not Applicable To FIRs Before 2018 Amendment

 It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute

is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication

made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption

against retrospectivity. An express provision should ordinarily be

made to make a statute retrospective. The presumption against

retrospectivity may also be rebutted by necessary implication as

held by this Court in Akram Ansari vs. Chief Election Officer

reported in (2008) 2 SCC 95, which has been referred to and relied

upon by the Kerala High Court in its judgment in K.R. Ramesh vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2020 SCC

Online Kerala 2529. The device of a legal fiction can also be used

to introduce retrospective operation. Generally, it is considered

that every statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie

prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made

retrospective. {Para 7}

8. In T.N. Bettaswamaiah vs. State of Karnataka being W.P.

No.29176/2019 (GM-RES), decided on 20.12.2019, which is reported reported in MANU/KA/9503/2019, the Karnataka High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602, and rightly held :

“21. … But in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors.

vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (1994) 4

SCC 602 it is held that a statute which not

only changes the procedure but also creates

new rights and liabilities shall be

construed to be prospective in operation

unless otherwise provided either expressly

or by necessary implication. A careful

reading of both Section 17A as also Section

19 do not contain any express provision to

show that they are retrospective in nature

nor it is so discernable by implication.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2021

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs TEJMAL CHOUDHARY 

Author: INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

Dated: December 16, 2021.

Print Page

Salient features of Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act 16 of 2018.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provides for prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. The ratification by India of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the international practice on treatment of the offence of bribery and corruption and judicial pronouncements have necessitated a review of the existing provisions of the Act and the need to amend it so as to fill in gaps in description and coverage of the offence of bribery so as to bring it in line with the current international practice and also to meet more effectively, the country's obligations under the aforesaid Convention. Hence, the present Bill.

2. The salient features of the Bill, inter alia, are as follows—

(a) Section 7 of the Act at present covers the offence of public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. The definition of offence is proposed to be substituted by a new comprehensive definition which covers all aspects of passive bribery, including the solicitation and acceptance of bribe through intermediaries and also acts of public servants acting outside their competence;

Print Page

Delhi HC: Amendments to Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 do not have a retrospective effect

 However, this Court is unable to accept that the PC

(Amendment) Act, 2018 seeks to repeal the provisions of Section

13(1)(d) of the Act, as it existed prior to 26.07.2018 ab initio. Mens

rea is an integral part of the offence under Sub-clause (ii) of Section

13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The use of the word ‘abuse’ in the said Subclause

indicates so. Thus, there is no reason to assume that the

legislative intent of repealing Section 13 of the PC Act was to exclude

the said offence from the scope of PC Act with retrospective effect.

54. In view of the above, Section 6(d) of the General Clauses Act is

applicable and persons convicted of committing the offence of

criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act would not

be absolved of their offences or the liability incurred prior to the PC

Act coming into force. It is also relevant to note that the offence of

criminal misconduct as falling under the provisions of Section

13(1)(d) of the PC Act prior to its amendment, is not the same offence

as is now covered under the amended provision.

55. In view of the above, this Court is unable to accept that if it is

established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had abused his

position for securing a pecuniary advantage to VISUL, the benefit of

any beneficial construction of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 could

be extended to him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 22.05.2020

 CRL.A. 1186/2017

MADHU KODA  Vs  STATE THROUGH CBI .

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Print Page

Whether approval is required for inquiry or investigation of offences U/S 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act in trap cases?

Answer: No,as per proviso to S 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act

[17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.—(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval—

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.]

Print Page

Prevention of Corruption Act 2018 dated 26th July, 2018

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cJgOHGaAGPgpzlUhiFcCRgEjgi3s4Uvj/view?usp=sharing

Print Page