This is a procedural amendment to simplify the processes for effecting quick trial of cases. Accordingly the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 would apply in respect of trial under P.C.Act, 1988 subject to certain modifications described in sub-Section (a) to (c) and (d) (a) and (d) (b). These amendments are explained individually sub-Section wise.

Sub-Section (a) of Section 22 reads as under-

in sub-Section (1) of Section 243, for the words "The accused shall then be called upon", the words "The accused shall then be required to give in writing at once or within such time as the court may allow, a list of persons (if any) whom he proposes to examine as his witnesses and of the documents (if any) on which he proposes to rely and he shall then be called upon" had been substituted;

Irregularities by public servants in the discharge of their duties are more complex than other criminal offences covered by Indian Penal Code. The accused is given opportunities as part of his defence first to file a record of his documentary and oral evidences in the court, whereas as per original citation in Code of Criminal procedure, in terms of Section 243 (1) the accused is called upon directly to file his defence in writing or orally.

Sub-Section (b) of Section 22 reads as under -

In sub-Section (2) of Section 309, after the third proviso, the following proviso had been inserted, namely: - "Provided also that the proceeding shall not be adjourned or postponed merely on the ground that an application under Section 397 has been made by the party to the proceeding."

Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power of the Court to grant adjournments. Sub-Section (2) deals with adjournment after commencement of the trial. The application under Section 397 refers to an application to the High Court or Sessions Court praying for calling of the records of the case to exercise powers of revision.

Sub-Section (c) of Section 22 reads as under:

After sub-Section (2) of section 317, the following sub-Section had been inserted, namely: - "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with enquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination."

Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the provisions for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of the accused in certain cases. Sub-section-1 of the Section vests the magistrate to conduct the trial in the absence of the accused. And sub-Section 2 gives the option to the judge or Magistrate to " either adjourn such inquiry and trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up separately "

Sub-Section (d)(a) of Section 22 reads as under:

in sub-Section (1) of Section 397, before the Explanation, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:-

"Provided that where the powers under this section are exercised by a court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings,-

1. without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for"

Sub-Section (d)(b) of Section 22 reads as under:

"Provided that where the powers under this Section are exercised by a court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings, -

if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies."

The Section reads as under:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), when an accused is charged with an offence under clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of section 13, it shall be sufficient to describe in the charge the property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section 219 of the said Code:

Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.

When the substance of the charge is proved, the exact time in terms of date and hour need not be proved, in respect of habitual offences. It is enough the duration of these offences i.e. the starting date and the ending dates are given. This is subject to the condition the range of the period between the beginning to the end should be more than one year.

Section 24 reads as under:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under section 13 or Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under section 12.

This Section is at variance with section 12 already discussed in detail regarding 'bribe-giver' dealt with as an abettor. There are different circumstances. The bribe giver may tempt the public servant with offer and bribe and get an undue favour or advantage for him in his dealing with the Government or Public Body. It may be on the other hand the bribe giver is provided only a lawful service, and even for this he is compelled by the public servant for illegal gratification to complete his work with out delay. Irrespective of the back ground when the prosecution of the public servant is based on the evidence of the bribe-giver, statements made by him under oath in the court will not be used against him and he will not be prosecuted under Section 12 for abetting the crime. Obviously the prosecutor in this case will go for the evidence of the bribe giver, only if the weight of the offence of the public servant is more serious than that of the bribe giver.

Section 25 reads as under. Vigilance cases relating to defence personnel will be tried in military courts only.

1. Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction exercisable by, or the procedure applicable to, any court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), the Air Force Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968), the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (30 of 1978) and the National Security Guard Act, 1986 (47 of 1986).

2. For the removal of doubts, it is here by declared that for the purposes of any such law as is referred to in sub-Section (1), the court of a special Judge shall be deemed to be a court of ordinary criminal justice.

Section 26 reads as under:

Every special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 for any area or areas and is holding office on the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a special Judge appointed under section 3 of this Act for that area or areas and, accordingly, on and from such commencement, every such Judge shall continue to deal with all the proceedings pending before him on such commencement in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 is repealed by this ACT. The provision in this Section has therefore significance only as a transient provision applicable to outstanding litigation as at the date of coming into force of this ACT.

Section 27 dealing with Appeals and revision reads as under:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all the powers of appeal and revision conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a High Court as if the court of the special Judge were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the High Court

Only the original proceedings under the ACT are before the Special Judge appointed under this ACT. The ACT does not alter the jurisdiction of the High Court as the Court of Appeals for hearing appeals and revision on the decision of the Special Judge. In such an appeal the court of the special judge that originally tried the case will be deemed as if the court of the special Judge were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the High Court

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against him.

The ACT has consolidated and repealed relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which are incorporated in the ACT. It also repealed the whole of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, and made select amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. It also provided deviations for the specific purposes of this Act from provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Otherwise the applicability of other legislation dealing with crimes is not excluded. If a public servant in addition to the offence of bribery and corruption also commits other offences like 'cheating' which are covered under the Indian Penal Code, simultaneous action under both enactment will be initiated under him. Such an action of course will be taken only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Be initiated only before the Special Judge, appointed under the P.C. Act, 1988. Similarly relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which have not been specifically revised for the purpose of this ACT, are still applicable in respects of proceedings initiated before the special judge under the P.C. Act, 1988.