A revenue official's son received employment in a private company whose lands the official was supposed to regulate. The official subsequently granted favorable classification to the company's lands. The son was placed at the company's instance. Under PCA, which statements are correct? Statement 1: The official is liable under Section 7 for accepting indirect gratification (employment for son). Statement 2: The employment arrangement constitutes gratification under PCA definitions. Statement 3: The official cannot be prosecuted if the son's services were legitimate. Statement 4: The company can be prosecuted for abetting the official's corruption. Which statements are correct?

Section 7 of the PCA, 1988 covers gratification obtained not just for oneself but also for any other person, making the son's employment at the company's instance an indirect but legally recognized gratification. The definition of "gratification" under the Act is deliberately broad and includes non-monetary benefits like employment, so the legitimacy of the son's work is no defence. Statement 3 fails because the PCA targets the corrupt motive behind the arrangement, not the quality or genuineness of services rendered by the beneficiary the quid pro quo (employment → favourable land classification) is sufficient to establish the offence. Finally, the company, having orchestrated the employment arrangement to influence the official, is squarely liable for abetment under Section 12 of the PCA.