Crl. A. No. 1186/2017

Provisions Involved

Section 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988


Special Judge had convicted the appellant with criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. And so, the appellant filed an application for it to be stayed. This is because the appellant has plans to contest elections for the Legislative Assembly seats of Jharkhand and this conviction rendered him disqualified for the same. The appellant stated that he was elected as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly for the first time in the year 2000. He Ors. wherein the trial court had concluded that appellant had abused his position of being a public servant, without any public interest.


Person can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act prior to its enactment


The criminal appeal basically asked for quashing the order given by Special judge. That particular order convicted the Appellant for abusing his position of being a public servant. He wanted to obtain the allocation of coal block in favour of one section, without public interest being involved.The Appellant had argued that the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended and and specifically section 13(1)(d) was deleted in such amendement. So, he argued that the actions ion did not constitute as an offence. Thereby, being acquitted in accordance with doctrine of beneficial construction.


The court held that with accordance with section 6(d) of the General Clauses Act, there will be no acquittal since the purpose of the amendment was to protect actions of public servants acting in public interest, but does not absolve intentions contrary to same. Such actions are criminal misconduct because of the mens rea involved. So it said that there is no need for giving a retrospective effect.