ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant-accused in Special Case No. 39 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga contending that the order of framing charge against the accused-appellant is illegal and that provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 will not be applicable to the appellant as he is not a public servant. 2. The prosecution filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused-appellant working as a Tout was collecting money from the general public and from the students to get their necessary works done in the Tahsildar's Office at Gulbarga. On 23.6.1994 the accused assuring Tabraj Ahmad and Mohammad Peera Pasha that he would get the income certificate issued by the Tahsildar and demanded Rs. 40/- for getting their work done. In that connection collected Rs. 5/- as an advance and lateron the income certificates were collected by the said victims and balance of Rs. 35/- was paid. At that time, the accused was caught red handed by the Lok Ayukta Police. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. The Principal Sessions Judge framed the charge on 3.7.1997. The accused pleaded guilty. Accordingly, he was convicted to undergo a sentence of S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of one month. 3. Immediately an application was filed under Section 387 Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence. The Principal Sessions Judge suspended the sentence in order to enable the accused-appellant to prefer an appeal. 4. On going through the charge sheet material and the impugned order, I find that the Principal Sessions Judge has utterly failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case at the time when he framed the charge. The accused-appellant obviously not a public servant. The provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act basically oriented to tackle the corrupt activities of the public servants. When a person who is not a public servant is involved in commission of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act as a conspirator or as an abettor, he would be jointly liable for punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act basically oriented to tackle the corrupt activities of the public servants. When a person who is not a public servant is involved in commission of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act as a conspirator or as an abettor, he would be jointly liable for punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the instant case, except the appellant-accused, who is not a public servant there is no other public servants arrayed with him in the charge sheet. 5. The appellant who is only a social worker, even if he had collected any money from the public to get any work done through a public servant, it would not be an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless some illegal gratification is offered for getting the work done. Even in such a situation, it is essential that the offender who is not a public servant can be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act when only he is arrayed along with the concerned public servant who is the co-offender. 6. In that view of the matter prosecuting the appeal solely on the allegation that he has collected some money for getting some work done in the Tahsildar's Office does not amount to any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act nor can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Sessions Judge without any exercisable jurisdiction has taken cognizance of the case. In fact the Sessions Judge could have discharged the accused without framing a charge. 7. The provisions of Section 375 Code of Criminal Procedure declares that there is no appeal against a conviction on the plea of guilt. However, it is permissible to challenge to the extent of legality of sentence in appeal. The peculiar facts of the case warrants that the sentence imposed is to be set aside as illegal ignoring the entire proceedings as non est and nullity in the eye of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge is set aside.