Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The applicant in this proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is an Arms Clerk in the Rai Bareilly Collectorate. He is said to have demanded Rs. 2,400/- from the Opposite Party No. 2 as bribe for grant of arms licence, in which connection he is sought to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’).

2. At the commencement of Trial before the Special Judge, the applicant raised a plea that he could not be prosecuted without a sanction being obtained from the District Magistrate, who was his appointing authority and since no sanction has been obtained, the prosecution could not proceed. The learned Judge over ruled this objection and held by his order dated 9.12.1998 that no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the applicant.

3. The only question canvassed at the bar and arising in the petition, therefore, is whether sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was necessary or not?

4. Heard Sri P. Chakravarty, learned Counsel for the applicant, Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Sri S.N. Siddiqui for the Opposite Party No. 2.

5. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antuley, 1984 S.C.C. (Cri.), 172 in support of his contention that sanction was necessary before proceeding against the petitioner while the Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has referred to the case of Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD) Patna, and has argued on the basis of the same that sanction would not be required for prosecution under Section 7 of the Act.

6. Before we proceed to discuss the case law, referred to above by Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to quote Section-7 of the Act, which provides for the prosecution of public servant and which is as follows :

“Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.—Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing, or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation (a)—"Expecting to be a public servant”. If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

(b) “Gratification”. The word gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.

(c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “Legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization, which he serves, to accept.

(d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.

(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and, thus, induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this Sectio