(1) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2) WE have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the High Court carefully and have also examined the question about the supposed conflict between the two decisions of this court in State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi and Dhaneshwar N arain Saxena v. Delhi Admn. On reading these two precedents, there seems to us to be no conflict whatsoever. The language of Section 5(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is clear and unambiguous in the sense that if a public servant by whatever means, be they corrupt or illegal, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage must, in any event, for doing so, abuse his position as a public servant, (emphasis supplied) If such abuse of his position as a public servant, is lacking in the prosecution case, and there is evidence barely to the effect, that he has by some means, be they illegal or corrupt, obtained for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, that by itself would not be enough. It thus appears to us that instantly the charge against the respondent was rightly quashed by the High cou