ORDER 1. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for having the charge sheet and the corresponding proceedings pending as Special Case No. 1/10 before Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) [for brevity 'the Act'], Sehore, quashed. In that case, cognizance of various offences against the Petitioners and the co-accused S.K. Bansal as can be tabulated herein under, was taken upon the charge sheet submitted by S.P.E. (Lokayukta) after due investigation into Crime No. 29/10 registered in its office at Bhopal - Name of the accused Cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Section Gambhir Singh, petitioner no.1 here 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and 120 of the IPC Gajanand ' Gajanan, petitioner no.2 here 12 of the Act S.K. Bansal, co-accused 12 of the Act read with S. 120 of IPC 2. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus - (a) At the relevant point of time, Petitioner No. 1 was holding the office of Vice-Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nasrullaganj whereas co-accused S.K. Bansal was working as Secretary of the Samiti. (b) Work of construction of Krishak Vishram Graha in the office premises of the Samiti was awarded to the complainant Santosh Joshi. Because of several factors, the work could not be completed within the stipulated period and the contract was ultimately rescinded with effect from 21.06.2008. However, a total amount of Rs. 2,21,000/-remained unpaid and for clearance of the corresponding bills for payment, the Petitioner No. 1, in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by him with co-accused S.K. Bansal, demanded a sum of Rs. 90,000/-as illegal gratification. (c) Not willing to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the office of Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) at Bhopal. Upon completion of usual formalities, a trap was arranged on 12.04.2010 in Petitioner No. 1's office where Petitioner No. 2 was also present. In the course of trap proceedings, the complainant, along with a signed cheque, bearing No. 083858, for a sum of Rs. 40,000/, handed over currency notes worth Rs. 30,000/-smeared with phenolphthalein to the Petitioner No. 1 who, while demanding an additional cash amount of Rs. 5000/-, substituted the cheque amount by Rs. 45,000/-and entered the name of Petitioner No. 2 as bearer there of The Petitioner No. 1 kept the extra amount of Rs. 40,000/, handed over currency notes worth Rs. 30,000/-smeared with phenolphthalein to the Petitioner No. 1 who, while demanding an additional cash amount of Rs. 5000/-, substituted the cheque amount by Rs. 45,000/-and entered the name of Petitioner No. 2 as bearer there of The Petitioner No. 1 kept the extra amount of Rs. 5000/-given by the complainant in the left pocket of his shirt and entrusted the tainted money as well as the cheque to the Petitioner No. 2. Immediately thereafter, the complainant came out of the office and gave the appointed signal to the trap party led by Inspector Naveen Kumar Awasthy. Both the Petitioners were apprehended and the respective incriminating articles were recovered from their possession. Hands of the Petitioners and those of the complainant were washed with the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the corresponding parts of the solution indicated presence of phenolphthalein by turning pink. 3. After due investigation, on 27.07.2010, charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court without obtaining sanction for prosecution of the Petitioner No. 1 as contemplated under Section 19(1) of the Act. However, cognizance of the offences was taken on 04.08.2010 whereas the Petitioner No. 1 continued to hold the office of Vice Chairman till 30.09.2010, the date on which he had tendered his resignation. 4. A bare perusal of the petition would reveal that it is based inter alia on the ground that Petitioner No. 1 is not a public servant and therefore, could not be proceeded against for the offences punishable under the Act. Nevertheless, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has raised an alternative contention that even if the Petitioner No. 1 is held to be a public servant, cognizance of the offences taken by the Special Judge against him was bad in law in absence of requisite sanction. Inviting attention to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Goa v. Babu Thomas AIR 2005 SC 3606 , he has further contended that since the fundamental error on the part of the Special Judge invalidated the cognizance of all the offences as without jurisdiction, all the consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed as nullity. According to him, even on facts, the offence of abetment to commit the offence defined in Section 7 of the Act was not made out against the Petitioner No. 2. 5. According to him, even on facts, the offence of abetment to commit the offence defined in Section 7 of the Act was not made out against the Petitioner No. 2. 5. In response, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that taking cognizance and presentation of charge sheet are distinct things and the bar, under Section 19(1) of the Act, operates against taking of the cognizance only. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh (2005) 12 SCC 709, he has urged that improper cognizance of the offences as against Petitioner No. 1 had no bearing on the legality of the proceedings against the Petitioner No. 2 or the co-accused S.K. Bansal. 6. At the outset, it may be observed that the argument that deeming provision contained in Section 64 of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 does not make the office bearers enu-merated therein as "public servants" within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC is not acceptable in view of the definition of "public servant" as given under Section 2(c)(ix) of the Act ( State of M.P. v. Rameshwar (2009) 11 SCC 424 referred to). Accordingly, on the date of taking of cognizance, the Petitioner No. 1, in his capacity as a duly elected Vice-Chairman of the Samiti constituted under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, was a "public servant", liable to be prosecuted for the offences under the Act. 7. As explained in Dilawar Singh's case (supra), since the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the contention that the Court takes cognizance of an offence and not of an offender does not hold good when cognizance of an offence under the Act is taken. Thus, the order-taking cognizance of the offences was without jurisdiction and wholly invalid, so far as it related to Petitioner No. 1 only. It was irrelevant that in the course of the proceedings, the Court has acquired competence to take cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner No. 1 after acceptance of his resignation from the office of Vice Chairman on 30.09.2010 (See. Yosofalli Mulla Noorbhoy v. The King AIR 1949 PC 264). 8. It was irrelevant that in the course of the proceedings, the Court has acquired competence to take cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner No. 1 after acceptance of his resignation from the office of Vice Chairman on 30.09.2010 (See. Yosofalli Mulla Noorbhoy v. The King AIR 1949 PC 264). 8. Still, even the ratio in Babu Thomas's case (above) does not provide any justification for quashing of the proceedings against the Petitioner No. 2 and co-accused S.K. Bansal as cognizance of the respective offences was valid in law. It is well settled that the inherent powers, under Section 482 of the Code, are to be exercised ex debito justifies to prevent abuse of the process of Court but not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, when the issue involved, whether factual or legal, can not be decided without sufficient material. 9. For these reasons, it would not be desirable to quash the charge sheet itself or the consequent proceedings against the Petitioner No. 2 and the co-accused (Narmada Prasad Sonkar v. Sardar Avtar Singh Chabara (2006) 9 SCC 601 relied on). 10. Consequently, the petition stands allowed in part. In the result - (i) The prayer for quashment made on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 is rejected. (ii) The order-dated 04.08.2010 taking cognizance of the offences, so far as it concerns the Petitioner No. 1 and all consequent proceedings including the charges as against him only, are hereby quashed as null and void. However, the Special Judge shall be at liberty to consider and decide the matter of taking of cognizance afresh in accordance with law on the basis of the same charge sheet in view of the fact that the Petitioner No. 1 ceased to be a public servant M CrC No. 9098/2010 w.e.f. 01.10.2010. Petition partly allowed.