HANSARIA, J.

( 1 ) THE important point for determination in this case is whether previous sanction is necessary for prosecution of an M. L. A. under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "the Act" ). As this question is being examined by this Court (may be, by any High Court) for the first time after the Act had come into force, in which the definition of "public servant" as given in Section 2 (c) of the Act is different from and wider than that given in Section 21, of the Indian Penal Code, which had come up for consideration by a Constitution Bench in R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antuley, AIR 1984 SC 684 : (1984 Cri LJ 613), in which it was held that an M. L. A. is not a public servant, detailed consideration of the matter is called for. In the background of very elaborate and' well studied arguments advanced by Shri Rath in support of the petitioner's stand for, whom he has appeared that such a sanction is necessary, which with ability has been controverted by Shri S. K. Das, learned Government Advocate, we are in a position to critically examine this question, which it deserves.

( 2 ) THE broad facts which need to be noted are that the petitioner was once a Minister of