K. Gnana Sambandan, Assistant Professor, Government Law College, Madurai In The Department Of Legal Studies, Tamil Nadu And Affiliated To Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai
ABSTRACT
This article did a comparative analysis of the legislations related to corruption in India and Denmark and endeavoured to find out whether there are any specific factors that made Denmark to stand as number one country in combating corruption in the World. Denmark is one of the countries ranking number one in the rank list of Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency International, a non-governmental organization for the past five years. This article tries to find out the feasibility to adopt or implement those factors in our Country. Even though there are variations in the lifestyle, area, population and living conditions of both India and Denmark, this article aims at appraising the ideology behind combating the corruption. Even though there are various methods suggested to combat corruption, this article comes out with a finding that both bribe-giver and bribe-receiver are parties to corruption. When we talk about corruption, then there cannot be a classification of corruption by public servants and private members of the society. Both are forming part of corrupt practices. Though bribe-giver stood as a witness and gives evidence for nabbing the public servant to book him under the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, at the same time, bribe-giver is also having a malice intention to achieve his goals in shortcut and corrupt practices, who are unfit, unqualified and influential person of the society. The Danish criminal code reveals that the private parties are also liable to be prosecuted under the corruption law as like public servants and is feasible. On examination of criminal judicial system of Denmark, it reveals that the mechanisms to combat the corruption like Judiciary, Police personnel, administrators are trusted by the general public. Even Public Sector units and Government institutions are said to be honest, transparent, accountable and ‘Public Interest” is the only concern for public sector units. Hence, in fine, it is suggested that bribe givers should also be specifically included as offender in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in par with Public servants. Prosecuting the private persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can reduce the corruption rate to more than half a percent of corruption cases in India. There should be some special procedures to identify and prosecute the private bribe givers and bribe receivers. At the same time, the Government and Private institutions in India should consider ‘public interest’ as the only concern for combating corruption and progression of India.
