Home/Study Directory/DRDO SAO/Prevention of Corruption Act
DRDO SAO · PRACTICE · INTEGRITY LAW
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)
Updated: 7 November 2026 · UPSC DRDO Senior Administrative Officer Grade-II · Beginner-friendly lesson + 10 MCQs with explanations
Start here
Practice notes and 10 MCQs on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018—undue advantage, Sections 7–10, narrowed criminal misconduct, Section 17A prior approval, sanction and presumption—for UPSC DRDO SAO Grade-II.
Read each problem in this order: who received or gave the advantage, what offence is alleged, and which stage is involved—investigation or court cognizance? This separates Sections 7/8, 17A and 19.
Definitions and undue advantage
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the central statute on public-sector bribery and related offences. The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, in force from 26 July 2018, rewrote the core offences around a single defined concept: undue advantage.
Section 2(d) defines “undue advantage” as any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration. The Explanation clarifies that gratification is not limited to pecuniary gratification or to gratification estimable in money, and that legal remuneration means remuneration which the public servant is permitted by the Government or the organisation he serves to receive. The wide definition of “public servant” in Section 2(c) was left intact.
Bribe-giving and commercial organisations (ss.8–10)
- Section 8: any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person, intending to induce or reward a public servant to perform a public duty improperly, is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Giving a bribe is thus a principal offence after 2018, not merely abetment.
- Proviso to Section 8: a person who is compelled to give an undue advantage is not liable if he reports the matter to a law enforcement authority or investigating agency within seven days from the date of giving.
- Section 9: a commercial organisation is liable to fine where a person associated with it gives or promises an undue advantage to a public servant intending to obtain or retain business, or an advantage in the conduct of business. It is a defence that the organisation had in place adequate procedures, in compliance with such guidelines as may be prescribed, to prevent associated persons from undertaking such conduct.
- Section 10: where an offence under Section 9 is committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other officer, that person is punishable with imprisonment of three to seven years and fine.
Compelled giver: the provisos to Section 8(1) require reporting to a law enforcement authority or investigating agency within seven days from giving the undue advantage. Investigative assistance: Section 8(2) separately excludes from sub-section (1) a person who first informs such an authority/agency and then gives or promises an undue advantage to assist its investigation of the offence alleged against the recipient. Do not attach the seven-day rule to this separate sub-section, or describe it as a general “approver immunity”.
Under Section 10, consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other officer must be proved; the penalty includes three to seven years’ imprisonment and fine. Merely holding a job title is not the stated test.
Criminal misconduct (s.13)
Section 13(1) as substituted contains only two limbs. Clause (a) covers a public servant who dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control, or allows another person so to do. Clause (b) covers intentional illicit enrichment during the period of office: the public servant, or any person on his behalf, is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
The former Section 13(1)(d)—obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, by abuse of position, or without public interest—was deleted. After 2018, an administrative decision that confers a benefit on a third party is not criminal misconduct under Section 13 unless misappropriation or illicit enrichment is shown; separate bribery offences may still arise if their statutory ingredients are proved. Section 7 can concern an advantage for the public servant or another person; deletion of the old limb does not make bribery lawful.
Section 13(1)(b) is intentional illicit enrichment. Explanation 1 addresses disproportionate resources/property held during office by the public servant or someone on his behalf which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. Explanation 2 defines known sources of income as income from lawful sources. These explanations are separate from Section 20. Section 13(2) provides imprisonment of four to ten years and fine.
Enquiry approval under s.17A
Section 17A bars a police officer from conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence alleged under the Act where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the appropriate Government (for Union or State employment) or of the authority competent to remove the person from office (in other cases). The same screen applies where the person has ceased to hold office.
The first proviso is the trap exception: no such approval is necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person. The second proviso requires the authority to convey its decision within three months, extendable by one further month for reasons recorded in writing.
Whether a particular allegation falls within Section 17A’s main rule depends on its relationship to an official recommendation or decision. The label “disproportionate assets” alone does not settle that issue. For a straightforward MCQ, test the first proviso’s express on-the-spot-arrest exemption rather than assuming that every other offence automatically requires approval.
Sanction and presumption (ss.19, 20)
Section 19(1) requires previous sanction before court cognizance of the specified offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged against a public servant, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Do not extend this list automatically to every offence under the Act. The Explanation includes a person who has ceased to hold the relevant office, including someone now holding another office. The appropriate Government or competent removal authority is identified under Section 19; where a doubt arises, sub-section (2) refers to the authority competent to remove the person when the offence was allegedly committed. The authority must endeavour to convey its decision within three months of receipt of the proposal. A further month is allowed where legal consultation is required, for reasons recorded in writing. This is not the same timing formulation as Section 17A, nor a statement that silence automatically grants sanction.
Section 20 applies in a trial under Section 7 or Section 11 only after it is proved that the accused public servant accepted, obtained or attempted to obtain an undue advantage from a person, for himself or another person. The statute then presumes the specified motive or reward under Section 7, or absence/known inadequacy of consideration under Section 11, unless the contrary is proved. It is therefore a rebuttable presumption based on proved statutory foundational facts—not a presumption triggered simply by registering a complaint, filing a charge-sheet or making an allegation. Do not treat it as an automatic conviction rule or apply it to the disproportionate-assets offence in Section 13(1)(b). That subsection has its own explanation concerning illicit enrichment.
Related process points often paired with these sections: Section 4(4) expects the special judge to hold the trial day to day and to endeavour to conclude it within two years, with extensions for recorded reasons, the total period not ordinarily exceeding four years; Section 18A applies the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attachment and forfeiture in respect of offences under the Act.
Exam method
- Keep Section 7 (public servant being bribed) separate from Section 8 (person giving or promising the bribe).
- For Section 13, state only misappropriation and illicit enrichment; do not revive the deleted abuse-of-position limb.
- For Section 17A, ask whether the allegation is relatable to an official recommendation or decision; if the case is an on-the-spot arrest for accepting an undue advantage, prior approval is not required.
- For Section 20, identify the Section 7/11 trial and prove the statutory acceptance/obtaining/attempt facts first; remember “unless the contrary is proved”. Do not use it for Section 13(1)(b).
- Remember both Section 8 protections: compelled giving with seven-day reporting under the provisos to sub-section (1), and giving/promising after informing an agency to assist its investigation under sub-section (2). Section 9 separately provides an adequate-procedures defence for commercial organisations.
Key points to remember
The compelled-giver seven-day reporting protection under Section 8(1) and the informed investigative-assistance protection under Section 8(2) are separate routes. Never call the seven-day provisos the only protection.
Section 17A is not a blanket shield for every offence: its main rule concerns allegations relatable to official recommendations or decisions. Its first proviso expressly exempts specified on-the-spot arrests; do not categorise every disproportionate-assets allegation mechanically.
Practice: 10 MCQs
Attempt all ten questions, then press Submit. The correct answer and a short explanation appear under every question, followed by your score analysis.
📤 Share this practice set with your DRDO SAO study group
TelegramWhatsAppX (Twitter)FacebookLinkedInOfficial statute and section references
Read the amended wording, rather than relying on pre-2018 notes.
- India Code: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — official Act record.
- India Code: consolidated Act PDF — Section 2(c)–(d) (definitions); Sections 7 and 7A (taking an undue advantage/influence); Section 8(1) provisos and 8(2) (distinct giver protections); Section 9(1) proviso and 9(3) (commercial organisation and adequate procedures); Section 10 (consent/connivance and penalty); Section 11 (undue advantage without consideration).
- The same Act: Section 13(1)(a)–(b), Explanations 1–2 and 13(2) (criminal misconduct); Section 17A main provision and both provisos (prior approval, exemption and timing); Section 19(1), its provisos/Explanation and 19(2) (sanction scope, former office-holders and timing); Section 20 (rebuttable presumption). Related process references: Sections 4(4) and 18A.
- Government-hosted consolidated Act copy — alternate public PDF if India Code is unavailable.
Editorial verification note
This version adds Section 8(2)’s separate investigative-assistance protection; corrects Section 11’s amended terminology; retains the Section 10 fine; specifies Section 19’s offence list and legal-consultation extension; and makes Section 20’s foundational facts and rebuttable nature explicit. The Section 17A exemption question was rewritten to avoid treating a disproportionate-assets allegation as automatically requiring approval. There are still ten questions, with unchanged answer positions.
Get a new practice set every day on Telegram: t.me/UPSCDRDO · Browse all notes in the Study Directory.
