JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - In these three applications. The point of law involved as well as the facts involved are identical and the Petitioner is also the same person. Therefore, all these three applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Petitioner was on the relevant date a Government servant being a Lecturer in B. J. B. College. Bhubaneswar. Charges have been framed against him by the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468/34, 477-A/34. Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, the Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the said charge. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 821' of 1984 is directed against the framing of charge in T. R. No. 74 of 1983;Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 822 of 1984 is directed against framing of charge in T. R. No. 35 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1966 is directed against framing of charge in T. R. No. 4 of 1984. 3. It is alleged by the prosecution in T. R. No. 74 of 1983 that the Petitioner was the Chief Examiner in Commerce Paper-I and he inflated the marks of one Geetarani in the markfoil from 50 to 75 without making any correction in the answer scripts and connived with Capt. Arun Kumar Patnaik and Aswini Kumar Nanda in declaring said Geetarani to have passed though actually she had failed. In T. R. No. 35 of 1983, the allegation against the Petitioner is that one Gajendra Patra, a student of B. J. B. College, was an examinee in the Annual Degree Examination of 1982 conducted by the Utkal University and it was declared that he has failed. But Capt. Arun Kumar Patnaik who was a Tabulator for the said Examination submitted a resultsheet of said Gajendra Patra showing him to have passed in IInd. Class Honours and, therefore, a notification was published by the University and communicated to the principal, B. J. B. College. The mark-sheet of said Gajendra Patra was received by the Principal of the College on 10-7-1982 and on 10-10-1982, the Petitioner who was a Lecturer in Commerce in the said College produced a mark-sheet prepared by said Capt. Arun Kumar Patnaik before the Clerk and requested him to issue the same in favour of the student; namely Gajendra Patra. The mark-sheet of said Gajendra Patra was received by the Principal of the College on 10-7-1982 and on 10-10-1982, the Petitioner who was a Lecturer in Commerce in the said College produced a mark-sheet prepared by said Capt. Arun Kumar Patnaik before the Clerk and requested him to issue the same in favour of the student; namely Gajendra Patra. The market-sheet did not bear any signature, but the Petitioner signed it explaining that he was a Tabulator and he had omitted to sign it inadvertently. Thus, it is alleged that the Petitioner in collusion with opposite party No. 2 Capt. Arun Kumar Patnaik and opposite party No. 3 Aswini Kumar Nanda, illegally got said Gajendra Patra passed though he had actually failed. In T. R. 4 of 1984, the allegation against the Petitioner is that one Prasant Kumar Bal was a candidate for Annual Degree Examination of Utkal University from B. J. B. College and he had passed with Second Class Honours in Commerce and Anr. Pranabandhu Patnaik, a candidate from the S.C. S. College, Puri, also had passed B. A. Examination without Honours. Petitioner entered into a conspiracy with one Aswini Kumar Nanda and by manipulating the Tabulation Register and preparing revised mark-sheet with inflated marks in Commerce and Political Science got said Prasanta Kumar Bal declared' to have passed in First Class Honours in Commerce and Pranabandhu Patnaik declared to have passed with First Class Honours in Political Science. 4. The only contention urged by Mr. Mund appearing for the Petitioner is that the allegations made against the Petitioner are related to his conduct and action as an Examiner of the Utkal University and while the Petitioner was functioning as an Examiner or Tabulator, he was not discharging his duties as a public servant and, therefore, the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, more particularly. Section 5 (1) (d) cannot have any applications. Section 5 (1) (d) cannot have any applications. The learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that since the Petitioner is admittedly a public servant being a Lecturer of a Government College and has abused his, position as an Examiner or Tabulator to inflate .the marks, alter the mark-sheet and attesting the mark-sheet which did not bear the signature of the competent authority, the offence squarely comes within the ambit of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it would not be appropriate to quash the charge in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of Court. It is made clear at the outset that Mr. Mund for the Petitioner did not raise any contention with regard to the other charges against the Petitioner, namely Sections 465, 466, 477-A, 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The correctness of the final submissions depends upon an interpretation of the provision of Section 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in its application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no dispute that the Petitioner being a Lecturer of a Government College is a public servant, within the ambit of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act may be extracted hereunder: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct (a) .... (b) .... (c) .... (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or, (e) ... Mr. Mund's entire contention is based on the fact that the Petitioner was not a public servant while he was acting as an examiner, and, therefore, it cannot be said that lie had abused his position as a public servant. The ingredients of offence u/s 5 (1) (d) are that the accused should be a public servant; that the accused should use some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abuse his position as a public servant, that the accused should have thereby obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; and for himself or for any other person. Section 5 (1) (d) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Ajmer (Now Rajasthan) Vs. Section 5 (1) (d) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Ajmer (Now Rajasthan) Vs. Shivji Lal, where a Government teacher took some money from a person for procuring a job in the Railway Running Shed. The Supreme Court held that since it is no part of the duty of a teacher to make appointments in a Railway Running Shed, it could not be said that taking of money by the said teacher for such purpose would be in the discharge of his official duty and, therefore, Section 5 (1) (d) would not be attracted to the said case. This decision of the Supreme Court was later considered in the case of Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena Vs. The Delhi Administration and was specifically overruled. In Dhaneshwar Narain's case2, the Supreme Court held that to bring home the charge to an accused u/s 5 (1) (d), it is not necessary that the public servant in question, while misconducting himself should have done so in the discharge of his duty. The Supreme Court further held that it was also erroneous to hold that the essence of an offence u/s 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) was that the' public servant should do something in the discharge of his own duty and thereby obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In another case of Dalpat Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has observed that to bring home an offence u/s 5 (l) (d). it is not necessary to prove that the acts complained of were done by the accused persons in the discharge of their 'official duties. In other words the expression "in the discharge of his duties" is mere description of the offence and is not an ingredient thereof. The expression "by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant" used in Section 5 (1) (d) was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala. The Supreme Court has observed that the gist of the offence under this clause is that a public officer abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The abuse may be by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those means. State of Kerala. The Supreme Court has observed that the gist of the offence under this clause is that a public officer abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The abuse may be by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those means. The juxtaposition of the word "otherwise" with the words "corrupt or illegal means" and the dishonesty implicit in the word "abuse" indicate the necessity for a dishonest intention on his part to bring him within the meaning of the clause. The Supreme Court has observed that whether the public officer abused his position or not depends upon the facts of each case. Interpreting Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5, in the case of the The State of Gujarat Vs. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi and Vallabhdas Gordhandas Thakkar the Supreme Court has observed, "Thus in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) the abuse of position as a public servant is clearly implied. Clause (c) also carried the same implication. It would, therefore, be reasonable to put on Clause (d) a construction which is consistent with the other clauses of the Sub-section. The abuse of the position would be the necessary ingredient of the offence the abuse being, either by corrupt or illegal means or by other means of the nature mentioned in M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala, ". This being the position of law, on the allegations made against the Petitioner, it is not possible for me to hold that the allegations do not attract the mischief of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No doubt, the Petitioner while he was discharging the duties of an Examiner was not discharging his position as a public servant, but that is not the sole allegation against the Petitioner. As an Examiner, he has inflated the marks, as a Lecturer of the Government College he has persuaded the clerk to issue the mark-sheet after he himself signed the same alleging that he was a Tabulator; and as a Tabulator in collusion with others he has also inflated the mark sheet without corresponding inflation of the marks in the answer papers. An these are so inter-linked that it is difficult to hold at this stage that the allegations against the Petitioner entirely relate to the discharge of his duties, as an Examiner. An these are so inter-linked that it is difficult to hold at this stage that the allegations against the Petitioner entirely relate to the discharge of his duties, as an Examiner. It is too well-settled that a charge can be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court only when the allegations taken in entirety would not make out the offence in question. In view of the involved 'nature of the allegations against the Petitioner, part of which is admittedly relating to his functioning as a Lecturer of the College and thereby as a public servant, it would not be in the interests of justice, appropriate to quash the charge at this stage. Whether in any particular case out of the three cases against the Petitioner, the provisions of Section 5 (1) ( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would be attracted or not can be appropriately decided only after the evidence is led and I would, therefore, refrain from entertaining the applications for quashing of the charge. 6. In the ultimate result, therefore, these three applications are dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed