0

The section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in India states:

Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence.

Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Undue advantage means illegal compensation in this Act. This law is related to non-public servant middlemen who take money from people as a reward for causing corruption.

Hypothetically, under this definition, could a person extracting or extorting money after the act has been done be liable under this code?

For example, someone promises to give that person undue advantage if they cause corruption. If X causes a public servant to perform a duty in corrupt ways for Y but Y doesn't compensate X for causing the public servant to do that, so X extorts money from Y, would X be liable under Section 7A?

Keep in mind that this is a special law, and in general, courts interpret a law to give it the full intent of the drafters.

3
  • This scenario sounds too fact intensive to interpret in a vacuum. In some circumstances it might be conspiracy/solicitation of a crime, in some it might now. The facts are ambiguous about the involvement of Y with X until after the act is done.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 24, 2023 at 2:38
  • basically X being a colleague of Y causes a public servant to perform a public duty in a dishonest way with the intention to get a reward from Y but Y doesn't give the reward so X extorts money from Y. I think reading the whole act might give a better picture
    – user49663
    Feb 24, 2023 at 3:31
  • FYI. Reformatted for easier reading and added tags without any intent to change the substance of the post.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 24, 2023 at 16:37

2 Answers 2

1

Based on the language of Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act of India, it appears that the focus is on the act of inducing a public servant to perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly through corrupt or illegal means, with the motive of obtaining an undue advantage. The section does not explicitly mention the extraction or extortion of money after the act has been done.

However, it is possible that the act of extorting money from Y by X after causing the public servant to perform a duty improperly or dishonestly could be considered as an attempt to obtain an undue advantage by X through illegal means. The court's interpretation of the section will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the intent of the drafters of the law.

It is important to note that the Prevention of Corruption Act is a special law that is intended to combat corruption and ensure the integrity of public servants. Therefore, the court is likely to interpret the law in a manner that upholds its objectives and prevents abuse of power. If the court finds that X's actions fall under the scope of Section 7A, then X could be held liable for the offense and face imprisonment and fine.

1

It sounds like X is guilty of violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, whether or not there is extortion for the personal benefit of X. Nothing in the act suggests that you have to benefit yourself from the corruption, you can do it for the benefit of another with or without their cooperation. This is because the act apples to:

Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person . . .

X is also guilty of extortion of Y under other law. But, the extortion has nothing to do with X being or not being guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It doesn't appear that Y has done anything wrong.

2
  • I'm talking about section 7A which is different from section 7 of the act.
    – user49663
    Feb 24, 2023 at 12:05
  • @IndianLawApplicant I'm quoting your excerpt from the Act in your question.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 24, 2023 at 16:31

You must log in to answer this question.