In India, offenses committed by public officials are dealt with through specific procedures under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Special guidelines exist for investigating and prosecuting offenses committed by public servants due to their official positions. Here’s how the law addresses these offenses: 1. Sanction for Prosecution (Section 197 of CrPC): Protection from Prosecution: Public officials cannot be prosecuted for actions performed in the course of their official duties without prior sanction (approval) from the appropriate authority. Granting of Sanction: The sanction must be obtained from the government or the authority that appointed the public official. This protects officials from frivolous or vindictive prosecutions, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear of undue legal harassment. Scope of Sanction: The sanction is required only if the alleged offense was committed while discharging official duties. For offenses outside the scope of official duties (e.g., personal misconduct), no such protection applies. 2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Corruption Offenses: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with offenses related to bribery, corruption, and criminal misconduct by public officials. Accepting Bribes: Public officials accepting or soliciting bribes in exchange for official favors can be prosecuted under this act. Misuse of Position: Public servants using their official position for personal gain or to harm others are subject to prosecution for criminal misconduct. Investigation by Anti-Corruption Agencies: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and State Anti-Corruption Bureaus are responsible for investigating corruption cases involving public officials. Sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Prior sanction is also required to prosecute public officials for corruption-related offenses, except in cases of a trap where the public official is caught red-handed. 3. Suspension and Disciplinary Proceedings: Suspension of Public Officials: If a public official is under investigation or has been arrested for an offense, they may be suspended from their position pending investigation or trial. Departmental Enquiries: Besides criminal prosecution, public officials can also face departmental enquiries or disciplinary proceedings initiated by their respective government departments for misconduct. These proceedings are independent of criminal investigations and can lead to penalties such as suspension, dismissal, or demotion. 4. Investigation Procedures: Registration of FIR: Once an offense is reported or discovered, an FIR (First Information Report) is registered by the police or the relevant investigating authority. Preliminary Investigation: Before formal investigation, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to determine if there is a prima facie case against the public official. Investigation by Designated Authorities: Depending on the nature of the offense, investigations may be carried out by the CBI, the Vigilance Department, or state Anti-Corruption Bureaus. Special Courts: Cases involving corruption or serious misconduct by public officials are tried in Special Courts established under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Trial Process: Arrest and Bail: In cases involving serious offenses, the public official may be arrested. However, they can apply for bail depending on the nature of the offense. Trial in Court: The case proceeds to trial once the investigation is complete, and charges are framed. If the offense involves corruption, the trial is conducted by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Punishment: If found guilty, public officials can face penalties such as imprisonment, fines, and in cases of corruption, forfeiture of property acquired through corrupt practices. 6. Special Provisions for High-Ranking Officials: Permission from Higher Authorities: In cases involving high-ranking officials (e.g., ministers, senior bureaucrats), permission from the central or state government is required before prosecuting them, as they are often in sensitive positions. Lokpal and Lokayuktas: For high-ranking officials, the Lokpal (at the central level) and Lokayuktas (at the state level) have been established to investigate corruption allegations. These bodies have the authority to recommend prosecution against senior officials. 7. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Whistleblower Complaints: PIL in Courts: Public interest litigation can be filed in courts to address serious misconduct or corruption by public officials if the matter affects the public interest. Whistleblower Protections: The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 provides protections to individuals who expose wrongdoing by public officials, ensuring they are not retaliated against for their complaints. Conclusion: Indian law provides a structured procedure for dealing with offenses committed by public officials. It includes obtaining sanction for prosecution, investigating through specialized agencies like the CBI or Anti-Corruption Bureaus, and conducting trials in special courts. The law ensures a balance between protecting public officials from frivolous cases and holding them accountable for corruption or misconduct.

Dear Client, Public servant is defined as a government employee, officers in the military, navy or air force; police, judges, officers of Court of Justice, and any local authority established by a central or state Act. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 penalises public servants for the offence of money laundering. India is also a signatory (not ratified) to the UN Convention against Corruption since 2005. The Convention covers a wide range of acts of corruption and also proposes certain preventive policies. Indian Penal Code, 1860: • Section 169 pertains to a public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property. The public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of upto two years or with fine or both. If the property is purchased, it shall be confiscated. • Section 409 pertains to criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The public servant shall be punished with life imprisonment or with imprisonment of upto 10 years and a fine. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 • In addition to the categories included in the IPC, the definition of “public servant” includes office bearers of cooperative societies receiving financial aid from the government, employees of universities, Public Service Commission and banks. • If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act or to influence public servants is liable to minimum punishment of six months and maximum punishment of five years and fine. The Act also penalizes a public servant for taking gratification to influence the public by illegal means and for exercising his personal influence with a public servant. • If a public servant accepts a valuable thing without paying for it or paying inadequately from a person with whom he is involved in a business transaction in his official capacity, he shall be penalized with minimum punishment of six months and maximum punishment of five years and fine. • It is necessary to obtain prior sanction from the central or state government in order to prosecute a public servant. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 • The Act states that an offence of money laundering has been committed if a person is a party to any process connected with the proceeds of crime and projects such proceeds as untainted property. “Proceeds of crime” means any property obtained by a person as a result of criminal activity related to certain offences listed in the schedule to the Act. A person can be charged with the offence of money laundering only if he has been charged with committing a scheduled offence. • The penalty for committing the offence of money laundering is rigorous imprisonment for three to seven years and a fine of upto Rs 5 lakh. If a person is convicted of an offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the term of imprisonment can extend upto 10 years. • The Adjudicating Authority, appointed by the central government, shall decide whether any of the property attached or seized is involved in money laundering. An Appellate Tribunal shall hear appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and any other authority under the Act. • Every banking company, financial institution and intermediary shall maintain a record of all transactions of a specified nature and value, and verify and maintain records of all its customers, and furnish such information to the specified authorities. Process followed to investigate and prosecute corrupt public servants • The three main authorities involved in inquiring, investigating and prosecuting corruption cases are the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). Cases related to money laundering by public servants are investigated and prosecuted by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Financial Intelligence Unit, which are under the Ministry of Finance. • The CBI and state ACBs investigate cases related to corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The CBI’s jurisdiction is the central government and Union Territories while the state ACBs investigates cases within the states. States can refer cases to the CBI. • The CVC is a statutory body that supervises corruption cases in government departments. The CBI is under its supervision. The CVC can refer cases either to the Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) in each department or to the CBI. The CVC or the CVO recommends the action to be taken against a public servant but the decision to take any disciplinary action against a civil servant rests on the department authority. • Prosecution can be initiated by an investigating agency only after it has the prior sanction of the central or state government. Government appointed prosecutors undertake the prosecution proceeding in the courts. • All cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are tried by Special Judges who are appointed by the central or state government. Hope this answer helps you.

Dear Client, Dealing with offenses by public servants proceeds within a well-structured legal framework mostly under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the relevant provisions under the Indian Penal Code, IPC. The procedures in dealing with such offenses could well be summarized as follows: Legal Framework Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Act describes offenses that are committed by public servants for misconduct and bribery. Under this Act, penalties awarded to offenders for undue advantage or corruption range between three to seven years of imprisonment. The Section 17 A of the Act states that it is mandatory to obtain approval from the government before initiating any inquiry or investigation against a public servant for the acts committed in discharge of their official duties. Thus, this is intended to protect public officials from frivolous complaints against them. Indian Penal Code (IPC): The IPC contains specific sections concerning offences by public servants, like disobedience of legitimate orders (Section 166) and obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their duty (Section 186). Punishments differ, ranging from imprisonment to fine, depending upon the nature of the crime. Procedures for Investigation Initial Reporting: On the allegation against a public servant, this should be reported to a police officer. The police officer then verifies whether the allegations shall constitute a prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Approval Process: If the police officer finds the information to be credible, then prior approval must be obtained from the designated authority and only thereafter any inquiry or investigation is to be conducted. This is essential to ensure that investigations are undertaken with a view in mind and not politically motivated. Conducting Inquiries and Investigations: An inquiry can now be carried out for collecting evidence with the permission received. This includes the examination of documents, interviewing witnesses, and other such types of information. The inquiry should involve all due care and documentation. Disciplinary Actions: If any public servant is found guilty of misconduct or corruption then in accordance with service rules applicable to that official, disciplinary action under suspension or termination may be initiated depending upon the severity of the offense. Judicial Proceedings: Following an investigation, if there is enough evidence, the case can be filed within the court. It is then up to the judicial proceedings where the accused may defend himself against the allegations. Conclusion Procedures for taking action against offences of public officials are constructed not only to ensure accountability but also to protect public officials from groundless accusations. The involvement of multiple authorities, from reporting to judicial processes, serves to maintain an equilibrium between rigorous enforcement of anti-corruption laws and protection of rights of public servants. Hope this answer helps you.