( 1. ) THE learned Single Judge, before whom this appeal against conviction under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act)came up for consideration, has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench :-"whether the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are substantive offences, if yes, being totally independent, the cases falling under it are required to be decided without taking aid of illustration (a) of Section 116 of the penal Code? If yes, whether by taking the aid of Illustration (a) of section 116 of the Penal Code holding that the offence under section 12 of the Act is proved, the case of Rajaram Vs. State of m. P. 2001 (1) MPLJ 624, has been correctly decided?"

( 2. ) FOR a proper appreciation of the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer briefly to the legislative history leading to creation of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. This section that is merely a restatement of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code)punishes abetment of offences defined in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act, which respectively correspond to Sections 1