The amendment is not retrospective since your case is filed before the amendment you will not get the benefit of the amendment. the amendment will apply from the date it comes into the effect.

you can book an online consultation to send the charge sheet.

Sir with all due respect the relevant case laws and research need to be carried out based on the facts and circumstances of the case which is different in the criminal cases further i have gone through your previous questions and we have assisted on the available facts.

Dear Client,

Amendment prospective in nature - will apply to fresh offenses committed/booked after amendment came into effect.

Section 13 of the PC Act provides that obtaining, by a public servant, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing for himself or for any other person by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position or without any public interest, shall amount to an offence of criminal misconduct punishable under the Act.

Citation

Rajendra Shinde And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra

1) the recent amendment would not have retrospective effect

2)the proposed amendment narrows down the definition of corruption, . Section 13(1)(d) of the PCA covered various indirect forms of corruption including the obtaining of “any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” by illegal gratification or by “abusing his position as a public servant”. The amended section replaces it with a truncated definition of criminal misconduct by a public servant: fraudulent misappropriation of property under one’s control, and intentional, illicit enrichment and possession of disproportionate assets

n the case of C. M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779, the Apex court held thus:-

"22. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

"4...... It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilt. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts i.e. that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." (See V.D.Jhingan vs. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762 = (1966) 3 SCR 736).

1. The pending cases will be covered by the latest amendment to the act.

2. You can fight your case on the merits in your side, you should not be bothered about the amendments to the act.

You should concentrate in your defence to the charges leveled against you

So, I have already asked two questions on this matter, and i have not received satisfactory reply as well as you have not cited relevant case laws on my case(ACB Discharge case).

The opinions rendered in this forum shall be the individual's own opinions which may or may not satisfy you.

You cannot claim satisfaction because you have sought the opinion to your problem and not that the lawyers will try to appease you by answering the questions suiting to your taste.

You can contact your lawyer for procuring citations relevant to your case.

1. the amendment will not apply retrospectively.

regards

You may refer to the case of C.M. Grish Babu