Phaneendra, J.

The petitioner-Sadashiva S. Yelagod (hereafter referred as Accused) as well as the State through the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police (herein after referred as 'State' for Short) have called in question the Order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Gulbarga in Spl. Case No. 128/2007, wherein the Learned Sessions judge has rejected the application under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. filed by the accused and ordered to return the charge sheet to the State with liberty for them to file charge sheet against the petitioner after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute him. However accused was not discharged and proceedings were kept pending.

2. The Accused has filed this Crl. R.P. No.200072/2015 (Crl. P. No. 2579/2008 filed earlier was withdrawn later with liberty to file a Revision Petition vide order Dated 30-11-2015), wherein the State has filed Crl. R.P. No. 659/2008 before this Court.

3. The accused is aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge by stating that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the material on record and erroneously held that he is a 'Public Servant'. It is the main contention of the accused that he was not a public servant at all at any point of time and therefore, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC. Act') are not tenable and therefore, on that ground, he prayed for his discharge.

4. The State being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge in returning the charge sheet with a direction to obtain sanction and then to prosecute the accused, is before this Court in QLR. P.No. 659/2008. It is contended by Learned SPP that, the sanction was not at all necessary to prosecute the accused because of the reason that his services were already terminated as on the date of taking of cognizance by the Court. In this background, the accused and the State are before this Court, in these petitions.

5. The records disclose that the Crl. P. No.2579/2008 (later withdrawn and fresh petition filed in No. 200072/2015) filed by the accused was disposed of on 30.10.2008. The order discloses that the petitioner was absent and not submitted his arguments and the Court after hearing the respondent, dismissed the petition. In Crl. R.P. No. 659/2008 filed by the State, this Court vide order dated 22.08.2008 held that the question of obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused does not arise for the reason that, as on the date of taking cognizance, the petitioner was not in service and he was terminated from his service, consequently this Court has directed the Trial Court to proceed with the case further in accordance with law.

6. In view of the above said order both the petitions filed by the accused and the State were disposed of. Subsequently, the order passed by this Court on 22.08.2008 was recalled vide order dated 30.01.2009. Again this Court vide order dated 03.03.2009 dismissed the said Crl. R.P. No. 659/2008 holding that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the parties have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. A.No. 1700, 1701 and 1702/2010. The Hon'ble Apex Court in fact set-aside all the orders passed by this Court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration and disposal and consequently Crl. P.No. 2579/2008 and Crl. R.P. No.659/2008 were restored to the file of this Court.

8. The accused is present in person and argued the matter. Sri. S.S. Kumman representing the State addressed his arguments.

9. Before adverting to the grounds taken-up by the petitioner, it is just and necessary to bear in mind a few facts arising out of the records and also the order passed by the Trial Court in this regard.

10. The charge sheet papers disclose that the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Civil Engineer in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation office at Gulbarga on a fixed payment of Rs.12,000/- pm. the appointment order was issued on 21