Question Description
Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Hopefully, all those imbued with a deep commitment to public service join the ranks of public servants. Such public servants are required or expected to discharge their public duties with an acute sense of integrity, fair play and objectivity. But, alas, this is not so. There are public servants and public servants who do not measure up to this benchmark.Prevention of Corruption Act was passed to put down the said social evil i.e. bribery and corruption by public servants. It also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the Government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. As it is a socially useful measure conceived in public interest, it should be liberally construed so as to bring about the desired object, i.e. to prevent corruption among public servants and to prevent harassment of the honest among them.If a public servant takes gratification other than his legal remuneration in respect of an official act, he is criminally liable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).Mr. Gangaprasad was a peon with the government electricity department. The department has a huge backlog of outstanding bills. The department head Mr. Thakkar decided to disconnect all electricity connection bills of which are outstanding over six months. Kabir had not paid the bill over 12 months. He was friends with Mr. Gangaprasad. He asked him for help. Mr. Gangaprasad asked Rs. 2000 for changing his due date from 12 to 2 months. Kabir refused.Further allegations against Mr. Gangaprasad was that he had prepared a false T.A. Bill had cheated the Government Company and was guilty of serious criminal misconduct as envisaged by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the State's case and convicted Mr. Gangaprasad. Mr. Gangaprasad then filed an appeal before the High Court which allowed appeal, mainly on the ground that as Mr. Gangaprasad was not a public servant as contemplated by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, his trial under the said Act was without jurisdiction.Section 21 of the Penal Code defines Public Servant as ""Every person appointed in the service, pay of the Government, remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government""Q. Decide whether Gangaprasad is liable for taking gratification other than his legal remuneration.a)Mr. Gangaprasad is liable under PCA actb)Mr. Gangaprasad is not liable under PCA act.c)Mr. Gangaprasad did not inform Mr. Thakkar so he is not liable.d)Both Mr. Gangaprasad and Mr. Thakkar are liable under PCA act.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.