Ukkash F | Sastra School of Law, Tamil Nadu | 25th May 2020
Madhu Koda vs State through CBI
FACTS OF THE CASE
Delhi HC ruled out that the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 will not affect offenses before the enactment of the Act.
The Act is a substitute to Sec. 13(1) of the principal Act which deals with the Criminal Misconduct of public servants. In this case, the appellant was disqualified to contest elections on account of his conviction in the state of Bihar. The conviction was based on The Trial Court verdict that the appellant had abused his position as a public servant to obtain the allocation of Rajhara Coal Block in favor of M/s Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Limited (hereafter ‘VISUL’), without any public interest.
ISSUE
- Whether the Prevention of Corruption Act operates in a retrospective effect?
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that firstly, there is no such evidence against the appellant having any illegal gratification from the deal which constitutes under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC ACT and hence it is ex facie unsustainable.
The counsel on behalf of the CBI submitted that Section 13 (1)(d) did not require to prove Illegal gratification and the act does constitute a retrospective effect on the General Clauses Act.
The court decided firstly whether the need for Illegal gratification is necessary to prove an offense under the said Act. A plain reading of the sub-clauses of clause (d) of section 13(1) of the PC Act does not indicate that the demand of illegal gratification is a necessary ingredient of the offense of criminal misconduct.
A bare perusal of the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant indicates that in all those cases, charges against the accused were also framed under Section 7 of the PC Act.
“Section 7 of the PC Act refers to an offense of demanding or obtaining illegal gratification. In all the cases referred to on behalf of the appellant, the accused were charged with the offense of demanding/accepting illegal gratification.”
There were serious concerns expressed that decisions that did not involve any mens rea or any guilty intention or knowledge could, nonetheless, be considered as offenses under the PC Act. PC Amendment Act addressed the concerns regarding Sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, it would stand to reason to accept that the legislative intent was always to ensure that mens rea be considered as an integral part of any offence of corruption. If the wider opinion is that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices, it would not be apposite for this Court to stay the appellant’s conviction to overcome the disqualification incurred by him. Hence the act has no retrospective effect
CONCLUSION
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in this case decided that the sole purpose of the amendment itself is to make sure that Mens Rea will not be necessary to constitute a criminal offense. However, the Act has no retrospective effect.
Leave a Reply