JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:— This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated 27 th April 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the revisional application and quashing the proceedings taken against the respondent for offences committed under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. In the view that we take in the case, it is not necessary to give the facts in detail. It appears that the respondent was member of the Indian Air Force having entered the service on 17th November 1941. He retired from the service on the 15th June 1965 but was re-employed for a period of two years with effect from 16th June 1965. On 7th September 1966, the respondent was transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve with effect from 16th June 1965 to 15th June 1970, i.e., for a period of five years. In other words, the respondent was transferred to the Auxiliary Reserve Air Force under the provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces Act 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and rules thereunder. On 13th March 1968, the re-employment given to the respondent ceased and his services were terminated from 1st April 1968.

3. A chargesheet was submitted against the respondent for having committed offences under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act during the period 27th March 1965 to 16th March 1967. The respondent filed a petition before the Special Judge, Hyderabad for dropping the proceedings against him on the ground that the Judge could not take any cognizance of the offences in the absence of any valid sanction of the appointing authority of the respondent. The Special Judge, however, rejected this application on the 20th of October 1972 on the ground that as the respondent was not a Commissioned Officer in the Air Force at the time when the cognizance was taken, no sanction of the President was necessary. Thereafter, the respondent moved the High Court in revision and succeeded before the High Court which held that as the respondent continued to be a public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as he remained a member of the Air Force Reserve, sanction was essential before prosecuting the respondent. The High Court accordingly accepted the revision petition and quashed the proceedings against the respondent but granted a certificate to the appellant for leave to appeal to this Court. Hence this appeal before us.

4. The only point that has been canvassed before us was whether the respondent having retired from the active service of the Indian Air Force continued to be a public servant even though he was transferred to Regular Air Force Reserve. The counsel for the Union submitted that as the respondent had retired from the Indian Air Force and his re-employment was terminated w.e.f. April 1, 1968, he ceased to be a public servant and, therefore, no sanction was necessary. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment of the High Court and the Special Judge. The facts, mentioned above, are not disputed and two questions fall for determination in this case.

5. In the first place, it had to be decided whether or not the respondent was a public servant during the period 27-3-1965 to 16-3-1967. Secondly, what is the point of time when the sanction was necessary, viz., the time when the offences were actually committed or when the Court took cognizance of the said offences. We will take up the second point first. An identical question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Venkataraman v. The State, 1958 SCR 1037 where the Court, speaking through Imam J., observed as follows:

"In our opinion, in giving effect to the ordinary meaning of the words used in S. 6 of the Act, the conclusion is inevitable that at the time a court is asked to take cognizance not only the offence must have been committed by a public servant but the person accused is still a public servant removable from his office by a competent authority before the provis