Judgment : The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to obtain sanction for the prosecution from the competent Authority as provided under Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the fourth and fifth respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 10,11 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has written a book by name “Seshan - An Intimate Story” and published the same through the fifth respondent as author of the book with the price of each book Rs.250/-. The title coupled with the photograph of the fourth respondent in the said book would give a clear attraction, publicity and temptation to all citizens of India to purchase the book even without a moment of scrutiny. 3. The fourth respondent hatched a plan to cause great damage to the reputation of the pillars of Dravidian Movement by making scandalous allegations against late C.N. Annadurai and late M.G. Ramachandran. The sale of 4,000 copies with the price of Rs.250/- per copy would fetch an income to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondents 4 and 5. 4. Since the fourth respondent abused his power as public servant, that too after the announcement of the elections to the six States in India, by publication, which would receive heavy response from all universities, colleges, schools, public institutions and private bodies. The publication of the book through the fifth respondent is nothing but mutual upliftment and beneficial scheme to extract money from the public due to the sale of books running to several lakhs Hence the same is attracted Section 13(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner has also referred to Section 5(1)(d) and 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and contend that the publication of the book in order to sell the same to the public by the government official would attract the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. I have carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in his affidavit has referred to the Supreme Court Judgment reported in C.I. Emden v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1960 SC 548 ) in order to draw an inference that the word gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or the gratifications estimable in money. I have carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in his affidavit has referred to the Supreme Court Judgment reported in C.I. Emden v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1960 SC 548 ) in order to draw an inference that the word gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or the gratifications estimable in money. The judgment deals with Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and held that the gratification other than legal remuneration means, if it is shown that the accused received the said amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration, then the condition prescribed by the section is satisfied. 6. There is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. In this case, it is admitted that the fourth respondent has written the book and the fifth respondent is publishing the same and the fifth respondent is selling the book by paying royalty to the fourth respondent. Selling the book to the public may not attract any of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no allegation by the petitioner that the fourth respondent had exercised his official power to sell the book either directly or through the fifth respondent. Further there is no allegation that the fourth respondent is receiving the royalty from the fifth respondent by exercising his official capacity to extract more money than the worth of the book. In the absence of any such allegations it cannot be said that the fourth respondent had exercised his official powers in order to enrich himself. 7. Hence the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.