Order.- This petition is to revise the order of the Special Judge for S. P. E. and A.C.B. Cases, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition Crl. M. P. No. 62 of 1972 in C. C. Nos. 25 and 32 of 1969 filed under section 530 (p), Criminal Procedure Code read with section 6 of Act II of 1947. 2. The petitioner is the accused in both the cases being prosecuted for charges punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He entered service as Commissioned Officer in the R. I. A. F. in 1941. His date of birth is 15th June, 1915. Therefore he retired from service on 16th June, 1965 as Group Captain (A /Air Commodore). He was re-employed from 16th June, 1965 for a period of two years i.e., up to 15th June, 1967 with the rank of Air Commodore as Director of N. C. C. He was again re-employed for another period of two years from I5th June, 1967. But however his services were terminated from 1st April, 1968. But from 16th June, 1965 to 15th June, 1970 he was transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve under the provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces Act. The offences are said to have been committed during the period from 27th March, 1965 to 16th March, 1967 and the Court took cognizance of the offences in June, 1969 i.e., during the period when he was in the Regular Air Force Reserve. 3. The Accused therefore filed a petition under section 530 (p), Criminal Procedure Code, read with section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he is a public servant, that the sanction from the President of India is necessary to take cognizance of the offence against him and that the want of sanction vitiates the proceedings. In the counter the State denied that the petitioner was taken into Air Force Reserve and contended that no sanction was necessary. But later it was conceded that he was in the Air Force Reserve, but it was contended that he cannot be considered to be a public servant merely because of his being transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve and no sanction is necessary. 4. But later it was conceded that he was in the Air Force Reserve, but it was contended that he cannot be considered to be a public servant merely because of his being transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve and no sanction is necessary. 4. The Special Judge, S.P.E. cases found that he is a private person for all practical purposes except that a liability is cast on him to answer the call up for duty by the competent authority that during the period of reserve he is not entitled for any emoluments whatsoever and therefore during the period of reserve, he is not an officer answering the definition under section 21, Indian Penal Code, that the contention of the petitioner that he continued to be in service during the period of his membership of the regular reserve cannot be accepted. In that view the Special Judge. S.P.E. cases dismissed the petition, Hence this petition to revise that order. 5. It is not in dispute that the accused was a public servant during the period of active service in the I. A. F. and during the period of extension or re-employment. The only question that arise for consideration are whether he can be called a public servant under section 21, Indian Penal Code, after his period of re-employment was over and whether sanction is necessary under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for laying the charge-sheet against him during the period he was a member of the Air Force Reserve. Admittedly at the time when the Court took cognizance of the offences the accused was a member of Air Force Reserve. Section 20 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces Act, 1952 says that the President may grant to such person, as he thinks fit, a commission as an officer in the Auxiliary Air Force with designation of rank corresponding to that of any Commissioned Officer in the Air Force. It is by virtue of this section that the accused had been commissioned as an officer and was taken as a member of the Air Force Reserve. Section 23 says that the service of any officer or enrolled person in the Auxiliary Air Force may, at any time before the completion of his period of service, be terminated by such authority and under such conditions as may be prescribed. Section 23 says that the service of any officer or enrolled person in the Auxiliary Air Force may, at any time before the completion of his period of service, be terminated by such authority and under such conditions as may be prescribed. The fact that his services could be terminated shows that he should be considered to have been on duty prior to the termination. Under section 25 of the Act a liability is cast on him for being called up for training or service in India or abroad. Under section 29 every member of an Air Force Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force shall, during the period of training or active service, receive such pay and allowances as are admissible to an officer or airman, as the case may be, in the corresponding rank, branch or trade of the Air Force. Under rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act an airman transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act shall retain the same rank or classification as was held by him in the Air Force immediately before such transfer. Under rule 37 of the Rules an officer may at any time be called upon to resign his commission in any Air Force Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force if in the opinion of the Central Government he is guilty of any misconduct or is otherwise unsuitable for retention in service. If such officer falls to resign his commission, his commission can be terminated compulsorily. Under rule 38 any airman may be discharged on the grounds of medical unfitness, unsatisfactory conduct, inefficiency and if his services are no longer required. Under rule 39, the Central Government may dismiss or remove from service any officer or airman of any Air Force Reserve or the Auxiliary Air Force before the completion of his period of service, should the circumstances in its opinion justify such dismissal or removal. Rules 41 to 55 impose several restrictions on his conduct and movements. The frame of the Act and Rules therefore go to show that though he is not paid any remuneration except during the period of training every year, certain duties and obligations are cast on him. His movements are also restricted during the period of his service. His services are liable to be terminated. He may be removed or even dismissed from service. His movements are also restricted during the period of his service. His services are liable to be terminated. He may be removed or even dismissed from service. These stipulations clearly establish that he is considered to be in service. Therefore he is a public servant under the provisions of section 21, Indian Penal Code. It is only the Commissioned Officers in the Air Force that would come within the purview of section 21 and the accused continued to be a Commissioned Officer even when he was in the Air Force Reserve. Therefore he should be considered to be a public servant. The provision with regard to the obtaining of sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is intended to safeguard the public servants from any harassment of vexatious proceedings on the one hand and to protect the interests of the State as it affects the morale of public services when the honesty and integrity of one of its servants is questioned. It provides for an impartial scrutiny of the allegations by a competent authority if he is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the person charged with. It is a salutary provision that applies to high ranking officers in the Defence Services and as such it is desirable that such sanction should be obtained in the case of the accused who was in the Air Force Reserve when the Court took cognizance of the offences. 6. The Special Prosecutor for S.P.E. cases has relied upon the decision in Legal Remembrancer, Bengal v. Gopi Ballav Datta1. The facts of that case are different. That was a case relating to rule 130 of the Defence of India Rules under which no Court can take cognizance of an offence under those Rules except on the report of a public servant. It was on the report of a Civil Guard Commandant that the accused in that case was prosecuted. A Civil Guard Commandant was held to be not a public servant as he could not be considered to be a public servant unless he had been called out to discharge any of the functions assigned to the Civil Guard in accordance with section 4 of the Civil Guard Ordinance and the Rules made thereunder. A Civil Guard Commandant was held to be not a public servant as he could not be considered to be a public servant unless he had been called out to discharge any of the functions assigned to the Civil Guard in accordance with section 4 of the Civil Guard Ordinance and the Rules made thereunder. Inasmuch as that particular Civil Guard Commandant on whose report proceedings started was not so called out, it was held that he was not invested with the power of a police officer and prosecution launched on his report was vitiated. In the present case the questions that arise is whether the accused is a public servant and whether prior sanction is required to prosecute him. The provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces Act and the Rules made thereunder as stated above show that a Commissioned Officer in the Air Force Reserve is a public servant. As the Accused was a public servant on the day the cases against him were taken cognizance and as sanction as required under section 6 of Act II of 1947 was not obtained the prosecutions are vitiated. 7. I therefore set aside the order of the lower Court and find that the prosecutions are bad for want of sanction. 8. In the result the petition is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside. A.B.K. ----- Revision allowed.