Section 13 Before and After the 2018 Amendment

Criminal misconduct was described in five clauses before 2018 and is described in two now. The change is not a tidying of the drafting; it removed the provision under which most large corruption prosecutions were brought. Because conduct before 26 July 2018 continues to be tried under the old clauses, both versions have to be known, and the case law on each has to be kept apart. This note sets the two side by side and states what follows for pending and future cases.

1. The Two Versions

	Before 2018	After 2018
Clause (a)	Habitually accepting gratification other than legal remuneration	Dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or otherwise converting for his own use property entrusted to him or under his control, or allowing another person so to do
Clause (b)	Habitually accepting a valuable thing without consideration or for inadequate consideration	Intentionally enriching himself illicitly during the period of his office
Clause (c)	Dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or converting entrusted property	Omitted
Clause (d)	Obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing his position, or without any public interest	Omitted
Clause (e)	Being in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income, which he cannot satisfactorily account for	Carried forward in substance as clause (b), through the Explanation
Punishment	One to seven years and fine	Four to ten years and fine

2. What Was Retained

Misappropriation. The old clause (c) survives as the new clause (a), in substantially the same words, with the addition of the limb covering a public servant who allows another person to misappropriate or convert the property.
Illicit enrichment. The old clause (e) survives as the new clause (b), recast. The offence is now framed as intentional illicit enrichment, with the disproportion operating through an Explanation which presumes such enrichment where the public servant, or any person on his behalf, is or has been in possession of resources disproportionate to known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account for.
Known sources of income continues to mean income from lawful sources, so the learning on that expression, and on the computation of assets, income and expenditure, applies to the new clause without qualification.

3. What Was Removed

The habitual acceptance clauses. The old clauses (a) and (b) covered habitual acceptance of gratification and of valuable things. They were largely redundant, since a single instance is punishable under Sections 7 and 11 and repetition is now dealt with by Section 14, which punishes an offender previously convicted under the Act.
The abuse of position clause. The old clause (d) is the substantial loss. It covered the obtaining of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for oneself or for another by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing one's position, or without any public interest, and its distinctive feature was that the public servant need not have received anything. It was the provision used in cases about the award of contracts, the grant of licences and the allocation of resources.

The case for deleting clause (d)	The case against
Any decision that later proved unprofitable could be recast as abuse of position, exposing officers to investigation years afterwards	The clause reached the conduct that causes the greatest public loss, where the benefit goes to a third party and nothing is traced to the officer
The words without any public interest imported an administrative law standard into the criminal law	A requirement of dishonesty or corrupt means could have been added instead of removing the clause
It contributed to decision paralysis in the administration	Illicit enrichment requires the officer's own wealth to grow, which the sophisticated arrange not to happen
Bribery and illicit enrichment remain punishable, so genuinely corrupt conduct is covered	The gap is real where the benefit is conferred on another and no quid pro quo can be traced

4. Which Version Applies

Conduct before 26 July 2018 is charged under the old clauses, because the repeal of a penal provision does not obliterate liability already incurred. Pending prosecutions under the old clause (d) therefore continue, and the authorities on abuse of position remain relevant to them.
Conduct after that date cannot be charged under clause (d), which no longer exists, and must be brought within Section 7, Section 11, or the surviving clauses of Section 13.
The enhanced punishment applies only to conduct after the amendment, by force of Article 20(1), which forbids a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force when the act was done.
When citing an authority, identify which version it construed. A decision on abuse of position states the law for pre-amendment conduct only; a decision on disproportionate assets states the law for both.

⚠ The practical consequence for future cases

Where a public servant confers a benefit on a third party by an improper decision and nothing is traced to him, the conduct is no longer criminal misconduct. It is an offence under this Act only if an undue advantage to him or to another at his instance can be proved under Section 7, or if the transaction amounts to misappropriation of entrusted property. Otherwise the remedies are administrative and civil: departmental proceedings, recovery, and the setting aside of the decision in judicial review, the route taken in the cases concerning allocations of public resources where the decision was quashed for arbitrariness under Article 14 independently of any prosecution.

5. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Criminal Misconduct: Section 13	The provision in full, with the computation
Disproportionate Assets: A Complete Note	The surviving clause in practice
Major Changes Introduced by the 2018 Amendment	Why the clause was deleted
Sections 13, 14 and 16, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	The provisions discussed
Article 20(1), Constitution of India	Which version governs pending cases