Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Oct 15 MCQs & solutions Free

Option (c) is correct because the passage explains that “Section 7 penalized a public servant for accepting any undue gratification beyond lawful remuneration in connection with their official functions.” In this scenario, the fee of Rs. 3,457 is a statutory payment required by government regulation; thus, its acceptance does not exceed lawful remuneration. Option (a) is incorrect because it incorrectly treats all monetary receipts as undue, ignoring the statutory requirement. Option (b) is incorrect because the issue is not about misappropriation for personal gain but whether the payment itself was undue, and here it was lawful. Option (d) is incorrect because, it incorrectly notes that the fee was an inducement.

Option (b) is correct because the passage states that “before the 2018 amendment, merely offering a bribe without it being accepted did not constitute an offence.” The reasoning was that Section 7 PCA required proof of “acceptance of bribe or its demand” by the public official, and since there is no acceptance or demand of bribe, an offence under Section 7 could not be established. Consequently, the abetment charge under Section 12 PCA also failed. In this case, Inspector Vidhan Singh refused the bribe and made no demand; therefore, Vidit Kumar’s offer does not satisfy the elements needed to constitute an offence under the pre-2018 legal framework. Option (a) is incorrect because section 7 is an offence with respect to acceptance of bribeiy by public official.
Option (c) is incorrect because there is no evidence of any prior demand, and the offence cannot be established on mere implication. Option (d) is incorrect because the legal requirement is not that both demand and acceptance must occur. Further the question is with respect to section 12 and not section 7.

Option (a) is correct because the passage clarifies that the 2018 amendment introduced Section 8 PCA, which explicitly criminalizes any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to a public servant as an independent offence, separate from the abetment clause under Section 12, thereby making the mere offer of a bribe punishable regardless of whether it is accepted. In this complex scenario, Vidya Gupta’s covert offer of Rs. 100,000—even though Inspector Vidhan Singh refused it—is sufficient to establish the offence under Section 8 PCA. Option (b) is incorrect because it relies on the pre-2018 interpretation where acceptance was necessary, which is no longer applicable after the amendment. Option (c) is incorrect because Section 8 PCA does not require proof of influence on the tender process; the offence is complete on the offer alone. Option (d) is incorrect because, under the amended law, the requirement of acceptance or solicitation is expressly removed with respect to offence under section 8, thereby rendering the recorded offer itself sufficient for prosecution.

Option (c) is correct because the passage confirms that before the 2018 amendment, the act of offering a bribe was not expressly treated as an independent offence under the PCA; it was only punishable as an abetment offence under Section 12. However, the claim that courts uniformly interpreted Section 12 PCA to require acceptance of the bribe is false, as evidenced by conflicting judgments—while the Bombay High Court held that an unaccepted bribe did not constitute an offence, the Madras High Court ruled that merely offering a bribe was punishable.

According to the Bombay High Court’s interpretation in Kishor Khachand Wadhwani v. State of Maharashtra (2019), before the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) —

• The act of offering a bribe without its acceptance did not amount to an offence.

• Section 7 PCA penalized only a public servant’s demand or acceptance of undue gratification.

• Section 12 PCA punished abetment of such offences, but since abetment required the existence of a primary offence under Section 7, it could not stand independently if the bribe was merely offered and not accepted.

Option (c) cannot be inferred because the said legal standing was that of the Bombay High Court and not Madras High Court. Madras High Court, in Ghanshyam Aggarwal v. The State (2020), took an opposing view and ruled that merely offering a bribe, even if refused, was an offence under Section 12 PCA. Option (a) is incorrect because it can be inferred as through section 12 offering of bribe was considered offence by some state and accepting is an offence under section 7 and 11. Option (b) is incorrect because it can be inferred as only after the amendment, offering has been made a standalone offence under section 12. Option (d) is incorrect because it has been directly provided in the passage.