The Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 is like the Gita or Bible to everyone, who is a public servant or one who deals with public servants. The objective for which the ACT was promulgated is to prevent bribery and corruption among public servants and create purity and cleanliness in the society.

The objects clause describes the act as "an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therein". The ACT amends the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also consolidates the legislation dealing with offences under the category bribery and corruption in public services scattered in different enactment. The provisions of other enactment relating to prevention of corruption in public services contained in the Indian Penal Code and The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, are now redundant and have been repealed by this ACT.

Some of the major changes brought about by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are as under:-

1. The definition of "public servant" has been enlarged ;

2. A new concept of public duty has been introduced for the first time [Section 2 (c)(viii);

3. Minimum sentence of six months has been prescribed for the offences committed under the Act. The Courts have been denied any discretion, either for special or adequate reasons, to reduce the sentence from six months;

4. The State Government or as the case may be, the Central Government has now the power to make an application to the District Judge for the attachment of the money or property which is believed to have been acquired by the public servant by corrupt means;

5. The concept of 'known sources of income' has undergone a radical change. This now means not only the income received from any lawful sources but also includes such receipt that has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time-being applicable to the public servant.

The ACT exhaustively defines the different persons coming under the definition of public servants and the different offences under the category 'bribery and corruption in public services' together with penalties prescribed therefor. It also includes clauses by way of procedural legislation incorporating amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure to quickly prosecute and punish offenders by appointing special judges in courts specifically constituted for the purpose. A significant feature of the ACT is the inclusion of a provision in Section 20 of the Act dealing with 'presumption of guilt'. If the prosecution proves the misconduct by the accused, it need not further have to proceed and establish a motive on the part of the accused public servant. It is for the public servant to explain his conduct or the circumstances appearing against him to establish his innocence. If he is caught accepting Gifts from the public in the course of performance of his duties or seen possessing wealth disproportionate to his known means or income, the law presumes him to be guilty of specific offences under the Act. It is now for the public servant, if he is otherwise to establish and prove the contrary.

Section 13 to 15 of the ACT introduces or defines new offences, not earlier provided under the Indian Penal Code, that is, the offence of criminal misconduct on the part of public servants. Section 13 provides that a public servant shall be guilty of misconduct, if it was proved that he or any person on his behalf was in possession of 'disproportionate assets' i.e. property or valuables, disproportionate to his known income for which the accused could not satisfactorily account. Section 14 provides deterrent punishment for habitual committers of specific offences under (Sec.8, 9 ad 12) of the ACT. An attempt to commit offences under specified subsections of Section 13 of the ACT is deemed a crime under Sec.15 and liable for punishment

The public servant can no longer sit tight and wait for the prosecution to conclusively prove his guilt beyond doubt and hold the dictum that until the contrary is proved everyone in the face of law is deemed innocent. The prosecution still has the responsibility, but the procedure is rendered more perfect and transparent. When certain circumstances against the public servant are pointed out, it equally becomes his responsibility to explain his conduct satisfactorily and prove his innocence or else he may be presumed to be guilty. In short if the prosecution proves the specific actions of the public servant implying presumptions of misconduct under the ACT, it is the duty of the public servants to explain those of his actions satisfactorily. In criminal law the motive of the crime is to be established, as it is assumed that crime is committed by the mind principally and meekly executed by the hands or other limbs of the body. This benefit is not available to a public servant accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Lest the quick and summary provisions of the ACT results in misplaced action and innocent officers or public servants are unduly victimized, the ACT also provides in-built safeguards intended for honest public servants. As a gun can fire in all directions, every tools created to fight or prevent the wrong can be put to abuse or misuse. In the enthusiasm for cleaning of or removing misconduct, enforcement action should not result, and it should not be possible that in the intention of its removal, dirt is actually thrown on an object that is clean already. While it is necessary and in public interest that corruption in public services should be eradicated, it is equally in public interest that honest public servants should be able to discharge their duties without fear of false, frivolous and malicious accusations. The provision to safeguard and prevent unintended abuse or harmful action under the act is provided in Chapter V of the ACT titled 'Sanction for Prosecution & Other Miscellaneous Provisions '. These are powerful and effective tools, but these should be used only by the most responsible persons at senior levels, and that too only after consultation and obtaining the prior sanction of an equally competent public authority. These are the essence of the safeguards provided in the Chapter V of the ACT to ward off hasty or unwarranted use of the enforcement provisions of the ACT

Everything in the ACT concerns the 'public servants', but who are public servants? If lengthy process of investigation is conducted and action or prosecution initiated under the ACT, the accused may still contend in the trial court that he is not a public servant and hence the offences cannot be charged on him. If court accepts the plea, it is on this single plea that the accused is set free. But the more painful part is that the entire labour and time spent on investigation and prosecution are rendered a waste of resource. It is necessary to identify who are public servants easily and it is also necessary that the definition is comprehensive that no one accountable for public functions escapes the ambit of law. The twin objectives are fulfilled, if the law is made not only clear, unambiguous and without being unwieldy, but is also exhaustive and full proof.

Up to now the definition of 'public servant' as given several decades back in Indian Penal Code under Section 21 was considered the exhaustive definition. This included 11 definitions numbered from (ii) to (xii). The approach in the Indian Penal Code was to define persons by stating their duties or functions performed.

The P.C. Act 1988 redefines the term 'public servant' to make it up to date and exhaustive, full proof and unambiguous, without making it too lengthy. It now includes 12 clauses with two clauses giving "Explanation of unique characteristic of the definition", against 11 under Sec.21 of I.P.C. The present definition in P.C. Act gives both the designation or titles of public servants, as well as the functions performed by them thus lending better clarity. Further a number of new categories of those giving service to the public like office bearers of co-operative societies, or persons holding responsible posts in the Universities including professors and those appointed to be member of service commissions or bodies constituted to conduct examinations. The objective to expand the coverage of all persons holding responsibility for serving the public in any manner. The act covers only public servants and not others. If any person is deemed a public servant, then the various provisions of the act applies. He can be deemed to have committed offences, whenever he commits any action that is prohibited by the ACT, for which punishment as prescribed under the act can be imposed. The exhaustive list included under the ACT is given in the column to the right.