Banwari Lal Sharma, J.

The present misc. petition is preferred by the petitioner-accused assailing the impugned order dated 18th September, 2017 passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 12/2015 (State vs. Lal Bhadur Rai) whereby application of present petitioner submitted under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was dismissed relating to the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (D), 13 (2) of P.C. Act and Section 120-B of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of Balveer Singh dated 27.12.2010 after being satisfied about the demand of Rs. 2,000/- out of which Rs. 1500/- was payable to Executive Engineer (petitioner-accused) and Rs. 500/- to be retained by co-accused Narendra Jain, clerk, trap proceedings were arraigned in pursuance of demand made on 27.12.2010, demand of bribe of Rs. 2,000/- was found true and Narendra Jain co-accused was trapped on 29.12.2010 and petitioner-accused and co-accused Narendra Jain were arrested. Thereafter FIR No. 02/2011 dated 04.01.2011 was registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur. At the relevant time on 29.12.2010, petitioner-accused was posted as Executive Engineer and was retired on 31.12.2012 after attaining age of superannuation, therefore for the purpose of taking prosecution sanction under Section 19 of P.C. Act was not required and prosecution sanction under Section 13 of P.C. Act was accorded against co-accused Narendra Jain and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner-accused and co-accused Narendra Jain for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (D), 13 (2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC before the trial Court. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, co-accused Narendra Jain expired on 04.01.2016.

3. Thereafter, after hearing on charge vide order dated 26.10.2016, charge was framed for aforesaid offences against the present petitioner-accused. After framing charge, petitioner-accused moved an application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before learned trial Court which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 18th September, 2017 (Annexure-1) which is under challenge in this misc. petition.

4. Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-accused submits that since at the relevant time petitioner-accused was posted as Executive Engineer and was a public servant. He submits that from the material collected during investigation, the offence was committed while acting or purporting to the act in discharging of his official duty, therefore Section 197 Cr.P.C. attracts in this matter. For the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court cannot proceed against the petitioner-accused. Without considering this fact, learned trial Court wrongly dismissed the application of present petitioner, therefore the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused may be discharged from the alleged offences.

5. Learned counsel relied on Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2015 (4) CJ(Cri) 1065, State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh, (2015) 1 RajLW 236 (SC), N.K. Ganguly vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation, New Delhi, (2016) 2 SCC 143 and Amal Kumar Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Another, (2016) 6 SCC 734.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that the demand of bribe and receiving of bribe for official act which is legally official act, cannot be termed as acting or purporting to act in the dischargee of official duty, therefore sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in case of demanding or receiving bribe is not required at all, equally the same is not required for criminal conspiracy for the aforesaid offences.

7. He submits that when the IPC offence of 120-B is made out for other offences punishable under the special Act then the nature of IPC offence of 120-B will be same as of the Special Act of