( 1 ) THIS is a revision application against the conviction of the applicant under Section 161, I. P. C. , and a sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows :

( 2 ) THE applicant was a cloth Inspector in the Supply Department at Basti towards the end of 1947. He was a temporary hand whose services were to terminate on 31-3-1948. The case for the prosecution was that certain persons applied for licenses for salt shops and the applications were sent to the applicant for report. The people applying for licenses went to the applicant for licenses, but the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs. 25/- from each one of the persons who wanted a license. Certain persons resolved among themselves not to pay the bribe, but one of them, later, backed out, paid the bribe and got the license. On learning this, the others consulted a vakil and approached the District Magistrate who initialled currency notes worth Rs. 75/- and sent them to the Tehsildar, directing him to lay a trap and if bribe be accepted by the applicant, to arrest him red-handed.

( 3 ) ON 3-1-1948, at about noon, the Tehsildar of Domariaganj went with two persons who wanted licenses to the house of the applicant. Those persons were sent into the room which Ram Dhayan singh applicant was occupying, while the Tehsildar stood outside and sent for the Sub-Inspector. A bribe of Rs. 40/- was paid to the applicant by the two persons and thereafter one of them came out and signalled to the Tehsildar, who came with the Sub-Inspector and searched the accuseds person. The initialled notes of Rs. 40/- were found on the person of the applicant. The Tehsildar then reported the matter to the District Magistrate.

( 4 ) THE applicant was suspended on 26-1-1948. As he was a temporary hand, his service automatically terminated on 31-3-1948. But the question of his pay from 26-1-1948 on which date he was suspended till 31-3-1948, remained to be considered. Before this could be considered, however, the applicant was prosecuted. The charge-sheet was submitted in Court on 30-4-1948, after he had ceased to be in Government service. The Magistrate convicted the applicant on June 30, 1949. After this, the order of his dismissal was passed on 23-7-1949, and he was dismissed from service with effect from the date of his suspension. The effect of this order was not that the applicant was dismissed on 23-7-1948, because his services had already come to an end on 31-3-1948; the effect of the order was that he was deprived of his pay from 26-1-1948, up to the 31-3-1948. Thus, on the date on which he was prosecuted he was no longer in Government employ. The applicants conviction was upheld by the lower appellate Court.

( 5 ) NO sanction for the prosecution of the applicant was obtained. In this revision, the only question for determination is whether sanction was required for the prosecution of the applicant. Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, No. II of 1947, under which the applicant was prosecuted, runs as follows :

"no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction, -- (of) (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Federation and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or some higher authority, (of the) Central Government; ** (c) In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. "

It is quite clear that the section applies to an offence being committed by a person who was a public servant at the time when he committed the offence. It is, in our opinion, further clear that the sanction to prosecute a person is required only when he happens to be a public servant on the date on which he is prosecute