Offences under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are two different offences even though there are part of the same Section. These two provisions are reproduced as under:
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—
*** ***
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,—
(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
*** ***.”
It is clear from these provisions that while the offence under clause (c) relates to misappropriation of any property entrusted to him as a public servant, the offence under clause (d) relates to obtaining of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant, etc.
Therefore, while there may be some similarity between these two offences, these two offences have different ingredients and are distinct offences. This is despite the fact that they have been laid down under the same Section of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Of course, there may be situations where both these offences may be attracted in the facts of a case.
In view of these reasons, I am of the opinion that if the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 13(1)(d), sanction was granted for this offence, and the charge was also framed for this offence, then the conviction under Section 13(1)(c) may not be appropriate. However, it may have to be seen, in the facts of the case, whether the accused person was misled by the error or omission in the charge and whether it has occasioned a failure of justice.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
