ORDER Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Applicant/State has filed this revision against the order dated 25.1.2010 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 6 of 2007, discharging the Respondent/accused of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short `the Act'). 2. In short, the prosecution case is that S.P.E. Lokayukta registered Crime No. 68 of 2002 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against the Respondent. After investigation, concerned police filed the charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code also along with the aforesaid offence. The accusation against the Respondent is that in the year 2001-02, while Respondent worked as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and thereafter, as Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Jabalpur despite being not eligible to raise loans from the Banks, abusing his position as public servant and supplying incorrect informations and false declarations, obtained loans and did not pay back the same. Respondent in the application forms for grant of loans mentioned his position as Director of Employment and Training so that the concerned bank officials being influenced by his status sanctioned the loans. Respondent suppressed his liability about the earlier loans due to other financial institutions. 3. Since officers of the concerned Banks made special note while sanctioning loans that "Shri Ramesh Thete is an IAS Officer" presently posted as Director of Employment and Training, it was apparent that Respondent misused his position in obtaining the bank loan for which he was not eligible. After investigation, therefore, charge sheet was filed under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and also under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code before the Special Judge. 4. On an application filed by the Respondent under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying discharge, learned Special Judge held that No. offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was made out against the Respondent and accordingly, discharged him of the said offence. However, he returned the charge sheet to the prosecution to proceed according to law for the prosecution of Respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said order, State has filed this revision. 5. However, he returned the charge sheet to the prosecution to proceed according to law for the prosecution of Respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said order, State has filed this revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that learned Special Judge erred in holding that Respondent did not abuse his position as public servant by mentioning his designation in the forms of the bank for grant of loans. He submitted that several loans were raised by the Respondent. Only on the basis of his being an IAS Officer by taking advantage of his position and by suppressing material facts in respect of his indebtedness, he secured loans even though he was not eligible. Since, he abused his position as an IAS Officer, therefore, his conduct fell under the ambit of Section 13(1)(d) of Clause (i) and Clause (ii) of the Act. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that merely mentioning the correct status and designation by the Respondent in the loan forms of the Bank, Respondent did not commit any offence. Since, he filled correct details about his designation, it cannot be inferred that he abused his position for obtaining loans from the Bank. 6. Though from the impugned order, it appeared that there were about eleven loan transactions, but the present case pertains only two loan transactions viz. Sr. Name of the Bank Borrower Account No. Date of Loan Amount in Rupees 1. Bhartiya State Bank, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Shri Ramesh Thete (I.A.S.) 037884 23.11.2001 2,00,000/- 2. S.B.I., Sultaniya Road Bhopal Shri Ramesh Thete (I.A.S.) 108182 21.12.2001 1,65,000/- These loans were personal term loans used to be disbursed to personal/service person with a condition of repayment by maximum 48 monthly instalment. In the column where name and address of the employee/establishment was to be mentioned, Respondent mentioned Director, Employment and Training. Similar description was given by him in the column of designation. These loans were secured with the guarantee of Mr. Manohar Agnani, the then Deputy Secretary, C.M. Sachivalaya, Bhopal and M.G. Tiwari, Principal M.I.T.I, Govindpura, Bhopal. Respondent had also executed an agreement and authority letter in favour of Bank for deductions from his pay. In these circumstances, it does not appear improper or unjust that Respondent disclosed or described his status in the society correctly. 7. Manohar Agnani, the then Deputy Secretary, C.M. Sachivalaya, Bhopal and M.G. Tiwari, Principal M.I.T.I, Govindpura, Bhopal. Respondent had also executed an agreement and authority letter in favour of Bank for deductions from his pay. In these circumstances, it does not appear improper or unjust that Respondent disclosed or described his status in the society correctly. 7. Except documents of the Bank, No. other oral or documentary evidence appears in the charge sheet to indicate that either Respondent abused/misused his position as public servant or the officers of the Bank felt influenced or pressurized by him. 8. It is true that Respondent did not fill the particulars and informations about previous loans borrowed by him from other Banks and that could be a reason inducing the bank to sanction loans to him. Here, learned Special Judge rightly observed that had the Respondent disclosed the complete details about his past liabilities, the Bank would not have sanctioned loans to him. From the charge sheet also, it appears that the Bank Officers gave in writing that if informations about the previous loans would have furnished to them they would not have sanctioned the personal loans to Respondent. This clearly indicates that the post and position of the Respondent did not make difference for sanction of the loan. In Delhi Administration v. S.N. Khosla 1971 (1) SCC 872 , Apex Court observed: (i) Where there was consideration for the obtaining of goods on credit and it cannot be said that an official who obtains goods on credit, even if he does not intend to pay, is obtaining a valuable thing without consideration. No. offence would be committed under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. (ii) The words "pecuniary advantage" are of wide amplitude but even so in the context of Section 5(1)(d) obtaining goods on credit cannot be held to amount obtaining pecuniary advantage. If there is an agreement between the officer and the trader that the officer is not expected to pay for the goods then there is No. doubt that his would amount to obtaining pecuniary advantage, but if there is No. such agreement and the officer does not pay it cannot be said that he had obtained any pecuniary advantage." 9. If there is an agreement between the officer and the trader that the officer is not expected to pay for the goods then there is No. doubt that his would amount to obtaining pecuniary advantage, but if there is No. such agreement and the officer does not pay it cannot be said that he had obtained any pecuniary advantage." 9. The gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of Clause (ii) 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. "Abuse" means misuse i.e. using his position for some thing for which it is not intended. That abuse may be by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those means. The word `otherwise' has wide connotation and if No. limitation is placed on it, the words `corrupt', `illegal', and `otherwise' mentioned in the clause become surplusage, for on that construction every abuse of position is gathered by the clause. So some limitation will have to be put on that word and that limitation is that it takes colour from the preceding words along with which it appears in the clause, that is to say, something savouring of dishonest act on his part. Dishonest intention is a necessity to bring the conduct of a public servant in the ambit of word `abuse'. (M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 SC 1116 ). 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, especially in view of the fact that only two personal loans were obtained by the Respondent, we find that there was No. evidence on record to indicate that he abused his position as public servant in obtaining the same. Learned Special Judge committed No. error in discharging the Respondent from the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section of the Act. Accordingly, the revision filed by the State is dismissed. 11. It is, however, made clear that whatever has been observed by us in the foregoing paras of this order, is on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. As such, it shall not be taken as a precedent with respect to other cases pending against the Respondent and further that it shall not affect the criminal proceeding against the Respondent, if pending under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 12. As such, it shall not be taken as a precedent with respect to other cases pending against the Respondent and further that it shall not affect the criminal proceeding against the Respondent, if pending under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 12. Subject to above observations, revision stands dismissed.