Bribe and banishment
Cynics say that the anti-corruption campaign has lost much of its steam and its prime mover, the Anti-Corruption Commission is fighting a losing battle. Some go even further and make derisive comments on the appeal of the Commission's chairman to wage a crusade against the scourge of corruption. These are facts of our body politic and we have to grapple with them, maybe for a painfully long time.
Coming to the pervasive corruption scenario, this writer would like to dwell specifically on the malfeasance of bribery, particularly of the public servants, and some problems of countering it. Bribery is a misdemeanour punishable at common law. In a large sense, bribe is taken for the receiving or offering any undue reward by or any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of justice, in order to incline him to do a thing against the known rules of honesty and integrity.
Our law makes the receiving of a bribe an offence while another punishes the giver as an abettor. The legislature has followed the normal law and has made both the giver and receiver criminally liable. The giving and taking of bribes as a crime is an outcome of refined jurisprudence. In the crude early ages the payment to the judge by the parties was a matter of course. However, with the elevation of morality, judges became as anxious to preserve themselves from the blemish of being considered partial as the public were concerned in seeing them dispense even-handed justice, uninfluenced by fear or favour.
Drastic laws for the prevention of corruption amongst public servants have been enacted by the legislature and deterrent sentences have been provided for corrupt officials. A corrupt official is a menace to society as he wrecks the policy of the government and the legislature. Therefore, once a public servant is found to be guilty of accepting or obtaining illegal gratification, he should not deserve any soft corner or indulgence from courts of law.
There cannot be any justification for treating an abettor of offence of bribery leniently, especially when the abettor is a rich and influential businessman or a corporate operative who sought to take advantage of the circumstances. For these offenders a substantive sentence of imprisonment would serve as a real deterrent. Sentence of mere fine for an offence of accepting illegal gratification would appear ridiculous.
There is a view that in bribery cases it is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of the decoy witness that the money was received by the accused person for an illegal purpose. Informers, that is persons who have joined or even provoked the crime, as police spies, must not be regarded as accomplices. The rule requiring corroboration of accomplices should not apply to this class of accomplices.
It has to be remembered that it is generally impossible to detect the particular offence of bribery in any other way except by decoy or police traps. Unfortunately, it is often inevitable that agent provocateurs have to be employed for detecting corruption.
Court convictions alone cannot be sufficient antidote to corrupt public servants accepting to take and actually taking bribe. It is in the power of the executive government to add to any sentence pronounced by the courts, another sentence which will often be even more terrible. Such a sentence may consist of degradation or dismissal, the infliction of which by executive government is expected to suppress and punish corruption and oppression.
It is not easy to catch corrupt public servants taking bribe. Very few would demand money and accept it in their offices. They find out agents and intermediaries who would be loyal and be accessible to the general members of public. The corrupt officials very quickly convert the ill-gotten cash into bonds, shares, jewellery etc., thus making it difficult to trace the trail of the illegal transaction.
The corrupt officials now ask the clients to pay them bribes in the shape of foreign currency, bearer certificates; at times cheques are also acceptable. These are considered as safer and convenient methods. Such officials construct several houses and purchase costly flats in benami and also buy expensive jewellery.
There is great difficulty in catching the top-notchers among the corrupt officials because their kickbacks run into millions. They take their due (?) share on big contracts, percentages from consulting firms, commissions on foreign deals, purchase of ships, aircraft, armament etc. The ill-gotten money of the top-notchers finds entry into accounts of foreign banks and investments in ranches, high-rise buildings and hotels in Europe and America. These are difficult to track.
To substantially banish the menace of bribery there has to be sufficient political will and determination so that power, whether political or bureaucratic, does not become the tool to become rich. There must be a stigma to black and unearned money and simultaneously there should be a primacy of the restoration of those values that sustain a just and ethical society.
The harried members of the public have had some glimpses of bribery and corruption of persons occupying high public offices. They have been bewildered by the recklessness of the predators and their associates. However, hazards, harassments, and insults notwithstanding, many would join the ranks of the corrupt given the lack of accountability and general acceptance of corruption as a way of life.
Comments