A Parliamentary panel has recommended making bribe-giving — either by an individual or by a firm — a punishable act. The committee has suggested punishing even foreign firms doing business in India for paying bribe to a public servant besides imposing a fine, going beyond the provisions of a Bill in this regard.
Suggesting a landmark change in the proposed Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2013, the Standing Committee on law and Personnel, Public Grievances, and law and Justice in its 69th Report suggested a slew of other measures to strengthen the enforcement of the PC Act, the only legal instrument to punish the corrupt within the system.
It endorsed CBI’s power to attach disproportionate assets; a three-month time limit for Government to process sanction to prosecute officials facing corruption charge; enhanced punishment for repeat offenders, and expeditious trial of cases in Court.
The Bill had stated that any entity whether incorporated in India or abroad but having business in India, and providing services including charitable work, would now be liable to prevent corruption by an individual associated with it.
But the committee noted a disparity in the Bill. It provides for jail term between three and seven years to a person associated with a business entity, including even senior officials, who bribe a public servant to further business interests but the commercial entity involved with the business escaped with a fine.
The committee headed by Shantaram Naik said, “The committee desires that the punishment prescribed for commercial organisation should be in addition to punishment prescribed to individual associated with it and in-charge of the commercial organisation.” The only defence available to the company will be to prove due diligence or adequate procedure being put in place to prevent such individuals against indulging in bribe-giving.
The report refused to accept coercive bribing as an alibi for bribe-givers and required them to give prior notice to anti-corruption agencies, except in emergent situations such as hospitalisation.
In case of forfeiture of disproportionate assets by CBI officer, proposed under the Bill, committee suggested that the burden to prove the assets as disproportionate must rest on the public servant and failure to fulfill it must result in forfeiture.
The committee even adopted a Supreme Court ruling last year that fixed a time-line for deciding on prosecution sanction against senior officials in the executive. An outer limit of three months was fixed by the committee to dispose decisions on sanction and an additional one month in the event the matter required opinion or assistance from Attorney-General or Advocate-General.
However, on the contentious issue whether sanction was at all required, the Committee furthered the cause of the executive by recommending sanction to be extended to public servants even after they retired from service. At present, there is no legal provision for investigating agencies to seek permission to quiz a former Government employee.
The committee has also asked the Ministry of Personnel to synchronise the minimum punishment for “habitual offenders” under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the lokpal and lokayukta Act by enhancing it from three to five years of jail extendable to ten years in the proposed legislation.