21. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which of the following does NOT amount to illegal gratification?
A) A bribe accepted for official work B) A gift received as a token of appreciation without any quid pro quo C) Money demanded by a public servant for expediting an official process D) Property received in exchange for showing undue favor in a contract
Answer: B Explanation:Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 criminalizes acceptance of illegal gratification. However, as per C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India (1997), voluntary gifts given without expectation of favors do not constitute bribery unless linked to an official act.
22. Which of the following statements is TRUE regarding ‘trap proceedings’ in corruption cases?
A) The complainant must personally witness the act of bribery B) Mere possession of money by the accused is sufficient proof of bribery C) Independent witnesses must be present during the trap D) The public servant must be convicted solely based on the complainant’s statement
Answer: C Explanation: The Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (2010) ruled that independent witnesses are essential in trap cases to ensure fairness and avoid false accusations. Mere possession of marked currency is insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved.
23. What is the primary requirement to prove an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) Demand for bribe B) Acceptance of bribe C) Recovery of bribe amount D) Demand and acceptance of bribe
Answer: D Explanation: In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police (2015), the Supreme Court held that demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to establish an offence under Section 7. Mere possession of marked money is not conclusive proof of bribery.
24. Under which provision of the Act can a Special Judge try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act along with offences under IPC?
A) Section 4 B) Section 7 C) Section 10 D) Section 17
Answer: A Explanation:Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 allows Special Judges to try offences under the Act along with related IPC offences. The Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) held that Special Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over corruption-related offences.
25. In corruption cases, whose sanction is required for prosecution of a Chief Minister?
A) President of India B) Governor of the State C) Chief Justice of the High Court D) Prime Minister of India
Answer: B Explanation: As per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Governor of the State is the competent authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of a Chief Minister. The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) ruled that delay in granting sanction can be challenged in court.
26. What is the primary objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) To recover bribe money B) To punish corrupt public servants C) To prohibit the appointment of corrupt officials D) To regulate financial transactions of public servants
Answer: B Explanation: The objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to curb and punish corruption among public servants. The Supreme Court in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) reaffirmed the Act’s primary aim to deter and penalize corruption in public administration.
27. Under which section can an accused public servant be discharged if prior sanction is not obtained?
A) Section 4 B) Section 10 C) Section 19 D) Section 22
Answer: C Explanation:Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates prior sanction for prosecution. In State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that lack of valid sanction can vitiate proceedings against a public servant.
28. Under which provision can a public servant be penalized for influencing another public servant to commit an offence?
A) Section 8 B) Section 10 C) Section 12 D) Section 14
Answer: A Explanation:Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 criminalizes influencing a public servant to commit an offence. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Gopalrao (2010) held that even indirect influence to obtain undue advantages is punishable under this section.
29. What is the key feature of the 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) Removal of prior sanction requirement B) Inclusion of private bribery offences C) Reduction of penalties D) Abolition of Special Courts
Answer: B Explanation: The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 added Section 8 to criminalize bribery in private transactions. The Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) emphasized the need for stronger anti-corruption laws to include private sector bribery.
30. What is the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) 6 months imprisonment B) 1 year imprisonment C) 2 years imprisonment D) 3 years imprisonment
Answer: B Explanation:Section 7 prescribes a minimum punishment of 1 year and a maximum of 7 years imprisonment for accepting illegal gratification. The Supreme Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) clarified that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction.
31. Which of the following is NOT covered under ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A) Possession of disproportionate assets B) Accepting bribes C) Negligence in government work D) Misusing official position
Answer: C Explanation:Section 13 defines ‘criminal misconduct’ but does not include negligence unless it involves dishonest intent. The Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) ruled that criminal misconduct requires active corruption or misappropriation.
32. Which agency is primarily responsible for investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) State Police B) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) C) Vigilance Commission D) Lokayukta
Answer: B Explanation: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the primary investigating agency for corruption cases. In CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016), the Supreme Court upheld CBI’s jurisdiction over corruption matters involving public servants.
Here is the completion of Segment 2 (MCQs 33-40) on The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following the same structured format.
MCQs on The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Segment 2: MCQs 33-40
33. Under which section does the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, define a ‘public servant’?
A) Section 2(c) B) Section 3 C) Section 7 D) Section 10
Answer: A Explanation:Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides an inclusive definition of a ‘public servant,’ covering government employees, judges, employees of nationalized banks, and others performing public duty. The Supreme Court in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) held that even the Chairman of a private bank performing public duty could be considered a public servant.
34. Which Supreme Court case ruled that prior sanction is not required when a public servant is caught red-handed while accepting a bribe?
A) R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala B) State of Maharashtra v. Gopalrao C) A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak D) M. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Answer: D Explanation: The Supreme Court in M. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) ruled that prior sanction under Section 19 is not required if a public servant is caught in a trap accepting a bribe. This decision ensures that corrupt officials cannot escape prosecution through procedural loopholes.
35. Which of the following is considered a ‘bribe’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) Money given as election donations B) A promise of a future job in exchange for a favor C) A legitimate salary increase given by the government D) A voluntary donation to a public servant’s charity
Answer: B Explanation:Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 includes both direct and indirect gratification in the definition of bribery. In State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2020), the Supreme Court held that even non-monetary benefits, such as job promises, can qualify as bribery.
36. What is the maximum punishment under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for ‘criminal misconduct’ by a public servant?
A) 5 years imprisonment B) 7 years imprisonment C) 10 years imprisonment D) Life imprisonment
Answer: C Explanation:Section 13 provides for a punishment of up to 10 years for criminal misconduct, including the possession of disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) reinforced the need for strict punishment for corrupt officials.
37. Which of the following is NOT an essential element for proving a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) Demand for a bribe B) Acceptance of a bribe C) Direct evidence of demand and acceptance D) Recovery of bribe amount
Answer: D Explanation: The Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) clarified that demand and acceptance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 7, but mere recovery of money does not establish guilt.
38. What is the significance of the Vineet Narain case (1998) in corruption law?
A) It established the presumption of guilt in corruption cases B) It mandated judicial review in corruption trials C) It ensured independence of CBI in investigating corruption cases D) It abolished the need for prior sanction for prosecution
Answer: C Explanation: In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) must function independently, free from political interference, in corruption investigations. This landmark judgment strengthened institutional integrity in anti-corruption enforcement.
39. Who has the authority to remove a Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) Chief Minister B) President of India C) High Court D) Central Government
Answer: C Explanation: Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Special Judges are appointed by the government, but the High Court exercises supervisory control. The Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) affirmed that High Courts have the authority to remove or transfer such judges.
40. What is the limitation period for filing a corruption case against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) 3 years B) 5 years C) 10 years D) No limitation period
Answer: D Explanation: There is no limitation period for corruption cases under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rameshwar (2009) clarified that corruption cases, being crimes against public trust, should not be time-barred.
