I will now provide Segment 3 (MCQs 41-60) on The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, maintaining the structured format.
MCQs on The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Segment 3: MCQs 41-60
41. Under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, what is punishable?
A) Bribery by a public servant
B) Bribery by a private individual
C) Bribery through intermediaries
D) Attempt to bribe a public servant
Show Answer
Answer: D
Explanation: Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced through the 2018 amendment, criminalizes an attempt to bribe a public servant. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (2022), the Supreme Court held that even an attempt to bribe must be backed by evidence of demand.
42. Who is the competent authority to sanction prosecution of a member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A) Speaker of Lok Sabha / Chairman of Rajya Sabha
B) President of India
C) Supreme Court
D) Prime Minister of India
Show Answer
Answer: A
Explanation: As per Section 19 of the Act, the sanctioning authority for prosecution of a Member of Parliament is the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha). The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) ruled that delays in sanction must be justifiable.
43. Which of the following is NOT a defense for a public servant charged under Section 7 of the Act?
A) The money was a donation
B) There was no demand for bribe
C) The money was voluntarily given without expectation
D) The money was not accepted personally
Show Answer
Answer: D
Explanation: The Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015) ruled that even if money is accepted through an intermediary, it still constitutes an offence if demand and acceptance are proved.
44. Which section deals with the punishment for abetment of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A) Section 12
B) Section 13
C) Section 14
D) Section 16
Show Answer
Answer: A
Explanation: Section 12 penalizes abetment of corruption, prescribing the same punishment as the principal offence. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagdish Prasad (2013) held that even indirect assistance in committing bribery falls under abetment.
45. What is the key change introduced in the 2018 Amendment to Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A) Widening of criminal misconduct definition
B) Restriction of ‘criminal misconduct’ to specific cases
C) Increase in minimum punishment
D) Removal of public servant protection
Show Answer
Answer: B
Explanation: The 2018 Amendment narrowed Section 13, limiting ‘criminal misconduct’ to misappropriation of government property and possession of disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) observed that clarity in corruption laws helps avoid misuse.
46. What is the minimum punishment under Section 13 for criminal misconduct?
A) 3 years
B) 5 years
C) 7 years
D) 10 years
Show Answer
Answer: B
Explanation: As per Section 13(2), the minimum punishment for ‘criminal misconduct’ is 5 years, extendable up to 10 years. The Supreme Court in N. Suresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2019) upheld that severe punishment is necessary to deter corruption.
47. What is the consequence of not obtaining sanction under Section 19 before prosecuting a public servant?
A) The case is dismissed
B) The trial is postponed
C) The proceedings are null and void
D) The case continues without sanction
Show Answer
Answer: C
Explanation: In State of Maharashtra v. Gopalrao (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that failure to obtain proper sanction under Section 19 makes the proceedings null and void, ensuring protection for honest officials.
48. Which of the following acts would NOT amount to ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13?
A) Accepting bribe
B) Fraudulent misappropriation of property
C) Possession of disproportionate assets
D) Delay in official work due to negligence
Show Answer
Answer: D
Explanation: The Supreme Court in C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (2013) held that criminal misconduct requires corrupt intent, and mere negligence does not constitute an offence under Section 13.
49. What is the role of a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A) Conducting investigations
B) Granting bail in corruption cases
C) Trying offences under the Act
D) Approving sanctions for prosecution
Show Answer
Answer: C
Explanation: Section 3 of the Act provides for the appointment of Special Judges to try offences under the Act. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988), the Supreme Court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Judges in corruption cases.
50. Which case clarified that a bribe giver is also liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A) P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P.
B) CBI v. Ramesh Gelli
C) Neeraj Dutta v. State
D) State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah
Show Answer
Answer: C
Explanation: The Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (2022) held that a bribe giver is equally liable for prosecution under Section 8 of the Act, reinforcing accountability in bribery cases.
51. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, who investigates cases against central government employees?
A) State Police
B) Vigilance Commission
C) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
D) Special Judge
Show Answer
Answer: C
Explanation: The CBI is the primary agency for investigating corruption cases against central government employees. The Supreme Court in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) upheld its jurisdiction in public sector corruption cases.
52. Under Section 15, an attempt to commit an offence under Section 13 is punishable with?
A) Half the punishment of Section 13
B) The same punishment as under Section 13
C) A fine only
D) No punishment unless bribe is received
Show Answer
Answer: B
Explanation: Section 15 states that an attempt to commit an offence under Section 13 is punishable with the same imprisonment and fine. In State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa (2017), the Supreme Court confirmed this principle.
53. Which section of the Act deals with habitual offenders?
A) Section 14
B) Section 17
C) Section 20
D) Section 21
Show Answer
Answer: A
Explanation: Section 14 prescribes enhanced punishment for habitual offenders. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Sharma (2019) ruled that repeated offences under the Act warrant stricter punishment.
54. Which section of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, mandates that trials for corruption cases should be conducted on a day-to-day basis?
A) Section 19
B) Section 22
C) Section 4(4)
D) Section 17A
Show Answer
Answer: C
Explanation: Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires that trials should be conducted daily and completed as expeditiously as possible. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) emphasized the need for speedy trials in corruption cases to maintain public confidence in governance.
55. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which authority is empowered to seize documents during investigation?
A) Investigating officer
B) Public prosecutor
C) High Court Judge
D) State Government
Show Answer
Answer: A
Explanation: Section 18 of the Act authorizes an investigating officer to inspect and seize documents necessary for investigation. The Supreme Court in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) held that proper procedural safeguards must be followed while seizing documents to ensure fair trial rights.
56. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that mere possession of money by a public servant does not constitute a corruption offence unless demand and acceptance are proven?
A) B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014)
B) State of Maharashtra v. Gopalrao (2010)
C) Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
D) P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015)
Show Answer
Answer: A
Explanation: In B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that conviction under Section 7 requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and mere possession of tainted money does not automatically imply guilt.
57. What is the punishment for taking undue advantage to influence a public servant under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
A) Fine only
B) Up to 5 years imprisonment and fine
C) Up to 7 years imprisonment and fine
D) No punishment unless the bribe is received
Show Answer
Answer: B
Explanation: Section 8 criminalizes taking undue advantage to influence a public servant, prescribing a punishment of up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (2022) clarified that intermediaries who facilitate bribery are also liable under this provision.
58. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, who has the authority to approve investigation against a public servant holding office at the central level?
A) President of India
B) Lokpal
C) Prime Minister
D) Director of CBI
Show Answer
Answer: B
Explanation: As per the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the Lokpal is the competent authority to approve an investigation against high-ranking public officials, including ministers. The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) upheld Lokpal’s jurisdiction over corruption cases involving senior officials.
59. Which provision under the Prevention of Corruption Act protects honest public servants from undue harassment?
A) Section 19
B) Section 17A
C) Section 7
D) Section 14
Show Answer
Answer: B
Explanation: Section 17A, introduced through the 2018 Amendment, mandates prior approval of the competent authority before investigating any public servant for decisions taken in the course of official duty. The Supreme Court in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora (2021) emphasized that this provision balances accountability and protection for honest officers.
60. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, what is the penalty for a company found guilty of bribery under Section 9?
A) Fine only
B) Imprisonment for CEO and fine
C) Both fine and blacklisting
D) No penalty unless the company’s director is personally involved
Show Answer
Answer: C
Explanation: Section 9 holds companies accountable for corruption and prescribes both fine and blacklisting from government contracts. The Supreme Court in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016) ruled that corporate entities can be prosecuted independently of individual directors.
This completes MCQs 41-60 on The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
